UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative(latimes.com)
latimes.com
UC slams the door on standardized admissions tests, nixing any SAT alternative
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-18/uc-slams-door-on-sat-and-all-standardized-admissions-tests
231 comments
I have a friend that’s a CSU faculty member in science/engineering. The amount of ideological crap coming down the pipeline is shocking to him… and he’s a pretty liberal guy. But he has a mortgage to pay and dealing with protesting students doesn’t really interest him. He became a professor because he liked teaching, not to become a target.
> he has a mortgage to pay and dealing with protesting students doesn’t really interest him
The great irony being it's decisions like this that are undermining support for the University of California. We're not there yet. But a few more of these, and I could see an off-year proposition that dramatically cuts the UC budget.
The great irony being it's decisions like this that are undermining support for the University of California. We're not there yet. But a few more of these, and I could see an off-year proposition that dramatically cuts the UC budget.
And such proposition will be slammed as anti-intellectualism driven by stupid, jealous, greedy deplorables. Without asking whether there might be deeper reasons for such development.
If it is done through a ballot measure, I think it might succeed or at least gain enough traction, that it will shed some lights on what UC spends money on.
Every parent is thinking about education. Kids and universities come up all the time. If it’s on the ballot, it will be scrutinized, regardless how it is going to slammed.
Every parent is thinking about education. Kids and universities come up all the time. If it’s on the ballot, it will be scrutinized, regardless how it is going to slammed.
About 10 years ago in my old university they had no minimum score because back then Computer Science was still considered a fringe field for geek but I digress.
Eventually they had to put a minimum because there was too much low score students draining the professors and tutors time both in and outside class.
When Computer Science became mainstream and synonymous with making lots of money then they began to limit places and the problematic students went away.
Eventually they had to put a minimum because there was too much low score students draining the professors and tutors time both in and outside class.
When Computer Science became mainstream and synonymous with making lots of money then they began to limit places and the problematic students went away.
[deleted]
Arthur Jensen was himself from UC Berkeley. That alone should have made the place a psychometry powerhouse.
This paragraph made my head spin:
>The Smarter Balanced test only provided “modest incremental value” beyond high school grades in predicting a student’s first-year UC performance while “reflecting and reproducing inequality” in educational opportunities for underserved students, committee co-chair Mary Gauvain, a UC Riverside professor, told regents on Thursday. Using the state exam in admissions decisions could benefit some underrepresented students who test well but have lower grades, the committee report found, but would disproportionately favor Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and could reduce admission rates of Black, Latino and low-income applicants.
Every study I've ever seen has shown that high school grades by themselves are a good predictor of 1st year college success; high school grades + standardized test scores are an even better predictor. As noted, the use of standardized tests further benefits some underrepresented students who may have had challenges in high school. So what is the problem here? The only issue listed is that it might benefit Asian applicants more than Black and Latino applicants. Is this really where we are?
>The Smarter Balanced test only provided “modest incremental value” beyond high school grades in predicting a student’s first-year UC performance while “reflecting and reproducing inequality” in educational opportunities for underserved students, committee co-chair Mary Gauvain, a UC Riverside professor, told regents on Thursday. Using the state exam in admissions decisions could benefit some underrepresented students who test well but have lower grades, the committee report found, but would disproportionately favor Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and could reduce admission rates of Black, Latino and low-income applicants.
Every study I've ever seen has shown that high school grades by themselves are a good predictor of 1st year college success; high school grades + standardized test scores are an even better predictor. As noted, the use of standardized tests further benefits some underrepresented students who may have had challenges in high school. So what is the problem here? The only issue listed is that it might benefit Asian applicants more than Black and Latino applicants. Is this really where we are?
Tests are more easily gamed. It's a tragedy that industries have grown around test prep.
If grade inflation was already a pernicious problem, once any semblance of an objective test is removed, the pressure on HS teachers to grade everyone at A+++++++ will increase even further. We are stunting generations of kids by not offering them any feedback on the quality of their effort.
"Nearly half of American high school students – 47% in the class of 2016 – are graduating with grades ranging from A-plus to A-minus. According to the Department of Education, the average high school grade point average was 2.68 in 1990. By 2016, it had risen to 3.38, with the biggest inflation occurring in private independent schools."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/08/24/cla...
"Nearly half of American high school students – 47% in the class of 2016 – are graduating with grades ranging from A-plus to A-minus. According to the Department of Education, the average high school grade point average was 2.68 in 1990. By 2016, it had risen to 3.38, with the biggest inflation occurring in private independent schools."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/08/24/cla...
I understand exactly how easy it is to game standardized tests.
However, I find that I do not know how easy it is to game grades. Perhaps that is equally easy, or significantly easier. For example, can one "game" high school grades by moving to a different neighborhood with a "better" school?
However, I find that I do not know how easy it is to game grades. Perhaps that is equally easy, or significantly easier. For example, can one "game" high school grades by moving to a different neighborhood with a "better" school?
Standardized tests might be gamed. But still I would argue that gaming them is least worst option. Anything else is either not properly standardized like grades or entirely gamed like extracurriculars, interviews, written works.
All of this could be true if the test had zero, or even negative, value in measuring the ability to learn & desire to excel.
Picking any test, and curating for those willing to and capable of the work required to pass it, would create this result.
That’s the problem with this justification. It doesn’t have a functional limit.
“DIY University” covered the history of how this mechanic brought down the Ming dynasty in just a couple generations.
Tests can always be justified by non-causal correlation.
Assessments ARE the reason why validated methods of learning, like project based learning, are not widely adopted.
We have copious amounts of evidence now that teaching to the test is both psychologically harmful & reduces the ability to learn.
We will not change our education system until assessments are dethroned.
The movement to end assessment is our only hope as a society to stop teaching children based on archaic & wrong ideas about how we learn & develop work ethic. It is a significant factor in why a generation is experiencing alarmingly destructive levels of anxiety on a daily basis.
We all have a lot to gain by building education programs where students demonstrate what they learn.
Tests are the worst possible option.
Check out “Most Likely To Succeed” for powerful alternatives.
Picking any test, and curating for those willing to and capable of the work required to pass it, would create this result.
That’s the problem with this justification. It doesn’t have a functional limit.
“DIY University” covered the history of how this mechanic brought down the Ming dynasty in just a couple generations.
Tests can always be justified by non-causal correlation.
Assessments ARE the reason why validated methods of learning, like project based learning, are not widely adopted.
We have copious amounts of evidence now that teaching to the test is both psychologically harmful & reduces the ability to learn.
We will not change our education system until assessments are dethroned.
The movement to end assessment is our only hope as a society to stop teaching children based on archaic & wrong ideas about how we learn & develop work ethic. It is a significant factor in why a generation is experiencing alarmingly destructive levels of anxiety on a daily basis.
We all have a lot to gain by building education programs where students demonstrate what they learn.
Tests are the worst possible option.
Check out “Most Likely To Succeed” for powerful alternatives.
How does one examine the retention of memory in the individual? I agree with the exclusive entrances in regards to exams, but how does one demonstrate knowledge of necessary concepts in order to show one is eligible for progressing in the learning? Tests are a form of qualification. One may have the desire but, if one does not have the aptitude to retain abstract intellectual ideas, how does it benefit anyone for one to be participating in the progress of human knowledge?
Does the SAT cover confirmation bias?
> The Task Force found that approximately 25% of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minor students earned their guaranteed admission into UC because of test scores. The Task Force’s report showed that test scores are better predictors of success for underrepresented minority students, first-generation students, and those whose families are low- income. Using recent UC-specific data, the Task Force found that test scores remain predictive of success even after student demographics are taken into account. That is especially true when compared to high school grades, whose predictive power has gone down due, in part, to grade inflation.
This seems very weasely worded to suggest that standardized testing benefits low income, first-generation and minority students, but since it doesn't actually say that in a straightforward way I'm left feeling that in reality it doesn't. Which would make sense, and is probably the main reason for this change.
Am I just being too suspicious?
This seems very weasely worded to suggest that standardized testing benefits low income, first-generation and minority students, but since it doesn't actually say that in a straightforward way I'm left feeling that in reality it doesn't. Which would make sense, and is probably the main reason for this change.
Am I just being too suspicious?
In China there is 1 exam, the Gaokao. This exam in no small part decides your future. In the past, you had one attempt, and if you failed, tough luck. Now they let kids retake it a couple times.
One exam. One billion people. One standardized metric to determine who goes where.
There are flaws to this of course. The rich, with better access to tutoring and such, naturally have an advantage over the poor. But herein lies the benefit of such a system -- it is an explicit advantage. Everybody knows it. Everybody can see it. The path to obtain it is as clear as day -- "simply" have enough money. Similarly, the path to obtain success is clear -- succeed on the Gaokao (besides cheating, which is a whole other thing, and corruption, which is yet another thing).
People naturally stratify themselves in competition. When you eliminate standardized metrics to distinguish people, they will find other ways. Your friend has an internship opening that your kid can fill. Your boss lets your kid work under him. You know people who can help your kid get ahead. Meanwhile, the underprivileged are still pushed down, but in a much more subtle way. It is not scores that divides them and the privileged. It is connections -- and when you are a kid, these connections come from your family. And if you are poor, you do not have these connections. And unlike the singular exam, the path to obtaining these connections is not so clear.
Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students. It hurts them, but because it is a subtle hurt that ties to their family's place in society instead of a loud hurt like the cost of tutoring, people pretend it is somehow better. It is not. It is worse.
One exam. One billion people. One standardized metric to determine who goes where.
There are flaws to this of course. The rich, with better access to tutoring and such, naturally have an advantage over the poor. But herein lies the benefit of such a system -- it is an explicit advantage. Everybody knows it. Everybody can see it. The path to obtain it is as clear as day -- "simply" have enough money. Similarly, the path to obtain success is clear -- succeed on the Gaokao (besides cheating, which is a whole other thing, and corruption, which is yet another thing).
People naturally stratify themselves in competition. When you eliminate standardized metrics to distinguish people, they will find other ways. Your friend has an internship opening that your kid can fill. Your boss lets your kid work under him. You know people who can help your kid get ahead. Meanwhile, the underprivileged are still pushed down, but in a much more subtle way. It is not scores that divides them and the privileged. It is connections -- and when you are a kid, these connections come from your family. And if you are poor, you do not have these connections. And unlike the singular exam, the path to obtaining these connections is not so clear.
Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students. It hurts them, but because it is a subtle hurt that ties to their family's place in society instead of a loud hurt like the cost of tutoring, people pretend it is somehow better. It is not. It is worse.
It has been my impression from people who lived in China that guanxi (connections) is far more important than the Gaokao and the main difference between the have and the have-nots is whether you and or your parents have a permit to live in a city.
When I bring the point of the standard exam as a great equalizer they immediately laughed and told me that the US is a egalitarian paradise compared to what goes on there.
When I bring the point of the standard exam as a great equalizer they immediately laughed and told me that the US is a egalitarian paradise compared to what goes on there.
My ex-boss is Chinese and this is what she had to say:
The best universities in China are public universities.
Performing competitively in the single standardized exam is the only ticket into the most competitive university programs.
Everyone's results are posted publicly. The government works very hard to prevent cheating, or loss of trust in the exam or its results.
Everyone's results are posted publicly. The government works very hard to prevent cheating, or loss of trust in the exam or its results.
Growing up in a communist country, the further removed from the standardized college entrance exam you are, the more connections matter. Standardized college entrance exam will get you into a good university, but connections decide your first job after graduation. It only gets worse from there.
Three wrongs don't make a right, though.
It's much less wrong than the holistical admission procedure.
FWIW, I've been on graduate admissions committees for many years. Standardized tests work both ways; it really depends on the admissions committee and how they use the test scores. To borrow a phrase, "test scores don't prejudice, people do."
I've seen both sorts of problems.
When test scores are used well, they function the way that some people here see them. They provide another bit of evidence of potential, and can help to provide some signal as to what is going on with someone who might otherwise be underresourced, or facing sociopsychological challenges, or whatever. It's also much harder to score well on a test than to score poorly, so I think that asymmetry is helpful: a mindful admissions committee doesn't hold a less-than-stellar score against someone, but will give credit for an exceptionally high one.
At the same time, I've been in committees where controversies have erupted because of the stereotypical bias situation. There are minorities applying, they have tons of extra-score stuff to attest to their promise, they are coming from ridiculously challenged backgrounds, and they get a middling score, and someone on the committee is arguing that this single score, at a single point in time, should somehow override really high GPAs with challenging courses, volumes of very impressive letters, scores of accomplishments in research and the real world, etc. This is in the context of a program that has lots of experience with disadvantaged students, where you can see that they have this extra "learning the ropes" disadvantage but are equally smart, etc. This is also with committee members who, on paper, seem ultra-woke, but for some reason when it comes to stuff like this become really irrational and ultra-focused on test scores, and come across as highly bigoted.
Anyway, I feel a bit torn in all of this because I've seen both sides of the test score problem and think both sides are right. The problem is that the challenge is really trickier than "are test scores good or bad", the challenge is really about how people in power use them, and that's murkier, and more complex, and fraught with all sorts of obstacles.
The China example is a good one: why have any limits on how often you can take the test? What, really is the basis for that other than some kind of bigotry about human nature? Can people not change? Don't they have rough spots? We're just going to pretend that all those other sources of corruption don't play a role? That tests can't be gamed?
It's not really about the test per se.
I've seen both sorts of problems.
When test scores are used well, they function the way that some people here see them. They provide another bit of evidence of potential, and can help to provide some signal as to what is going on with someone who might otherwise be underresourced, or facing sociopsychological challenges, or whatever. It's also much harder to score well on a test than to score poorly, so I think that asymmetry is helpful: a mindful admissions committee doesn't hold a less-than-stellar score against someone, but will give credit for an exceptionally high one.
At the same time, I've been in committees where controversies have erupted because of the stereotypical bias situation. There are minorities applying, they have tons of extra-score stuff to attest to their promise, they are coming from ridiculously challenged backgrounds, and they get a middling score, and someone on the committee is arguing that this single score, at a single point in time, should somehow override really high GPAs with challenging courses, volumes of very impressive letters, scores of accomplishments in research and the real world, etc. This is in the context of a program that has lots of experience with disadvantaged students, where you can see that they have this extra "learning the ropes" disadvantage but are equally smart, etc. This is also with committee members who, on paper, seem ultra-woke, but for some reason when it comes to stuff like this become really irrational and ultra-focused on test scores, and come across as highly bigoted.
Anyway, I feel a bit torn in all of this because I've seen both sides of the test score problem and think both sides are right. The problem is that the challenge is really trickier than "are test scores good or bad", the challenge is really about how people in power use them, and that's murkier, and more complex, and fraught with all sorts of obstacles.
The China example is a good one: why have any limits on how often you can take the test? What, really is the basis for that other than some kind of bigotry about human nature? Can people not change? Don't they have rough spots? We're just going to pretend that all those other sources of corruption don't play a role? That tests can't be gamed?
It's not really about the test per se.
Everything has flaws. Everything is game-able. The question is to find the least game-able system. Where is the line between "tests can be gamed" and "one can prepare for tests by educating themselves"?
China's system is not much of value in comparison. UC's problem is that there is no verification on acquired knowledge. Not standard test. You can have non standard test on how much and how well someone learned the knowledge.
> One billion people
If you referring to people who take the exam, it's 10.78M [1].
> One standardized metric to determine who goes where.
This is just to determine the entrance to public university. Of course, the people who can afford alternative higher education is negligible compared to those taking gaokao.
But there are actually a lot of people who won't take gaokao, as they entered vocational school, in 2019 6M entered the so-called vocational high school.
> Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students.
You got it wrong.
It's not about privilege it's about the effectiveness and efficiency of the talent selection. Secondary is about giving education as a means of climbing social ladder.
[1] https://3g.163.com/dy/article/GBTPVA0U0517M6OP.html?spss=ada...
> One billion people
If you referring to people who take the exam, it's 10.78M [1].
> One standardized metric to determine who goes where.
This is just to determine the entrance to public university. Of course, the people who can afford alternative higher education is negligible compared to those taking gaokao.
But there are actually a lot of people who won't take gaokao, as they entered vocational school, in 2019 6M entered the so-called vocational high school.
> Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students.
You got it wrong.
It's not about privilege it's about the effectiveness and efficiency of the talent selection. Secondary is about giving education as a means of climbing social ladder.
[1] https://3g.163.com/dy/article/GBTPVA0U0517M6OP.html?spss=ada...
the gaokao has also equity scores, requesting lower results for minorities, foreign nationals, persons with family origin in Taiwan, and children of military casualties
Unlike the SAT in California which due to Prop 16 cannot have affirmative action, the Gaokao has affirmative action. That is the biggest difference, and UC was happy with an analogue to the Gaokao.
>a student’s high school grade-point average, the rigor of courses taken, special talents, essays and extracurricular activities.
All of these metrics seem MUCH more gameable than the SAT. Sure, buying an SAT practice test book might bump your score up by 20 points. But if you look at the rigor of courses available, that is going to vary DRASTICALLY from school to school. At least when I was in high school, poorer schools had a lot less to offer in terms of AP classes, and wealthy people have obvious advantages when it comes to extracurricular activities and some "special talents"
All of these metrics seem MUCH more gameable than the SAT. Sure, buying an SAT practice test book might bump your score up by 20 points. But if you look at the rigor of courses available, that is going to vary DRASTICALLY from school to school. At least when I was in high school, poorer schools had a lot less to offer in terms of AP classes, and wealthy people have obvious advantages when it comes to extracurricular activities and some "special talents"
That's the point. UC wants to implement affirmative action but can't because voters rejected Prop 16. So they do this to make it easier to justify that their target demographics are "qualified" because now there's no objective measurement metric to judge people by.
I can’t believe how much it feels like 1984. “War is peace.”
‘University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16
[repealing that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.]
means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."’
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...
‘University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16
[repealing that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.]
means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."’
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...
Wonderfully empowering for the admissions administrators! Schools will be needing to keep on a lot of low-level staff:
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/fres...
>record-breaking number of freshman applications for fall 2021 — more than 200,000
>evaluate the flood of applications without test scores, using 13 other factors
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/fres...
>Factors we consider
>Identification by UC as being ranked in the top 9 percent of their high school class ("eligible in the local context," or ELC).
>Academic accomplishments in light of a student's life experiences and special circumstances.
>Location of a student's secondary school and residence.
What's the play? College prep K-8, then move to Fresno for 9-12 so you can be in top 9%?
More likely, hire private tutors while you go to a Title 1 school in Santa Ana or some other impoverished area, then mark yourself as part-Native American and non-binary on your college application. If you can't afford private tutors, well, guess you had the bad luck to be born Asian.
It worked for Elizabeth Warren.
Why not fuck around in high school and then go get a 4.0 at a semi-prestigious community college?
Except "prestigious" (even "semi-prestigious") and "community college" are mutually exclusive. You may be able to get a satisfactory education at one, depending on the college and the field of study...but prestigious? No way.
this discussion is about UC -- he's talking about the fact that the admission rate for many campuses and majors is actually higher for california CC transfers, with some UC campuses still offering guaranteed admission (TAG) under certain conditions.
i think the "semi-prestigious" refers to the fact that some bay area CCs are known as transfer feeders for Berkeley (which does not have TAG, so you have to be competitive among CC candidates).
i think the "semi-prestigious" refers to the fact that some bay area CCs are known as transfer feeders for Berkeley (which does not have TAG, so you have to be competitive among CC candidates).
Seems like a great way to completely screw over asian students.
Well, America is still more or less a democracy -- the locally-ruling parties don't seem to have entirely corrupted election systems, yet. So getting involved in politics might make a difference. Best hurry up, while you can.
That was one of the goals.
From their criteria page:
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/fres...
"Special talents, achievements and awards in a particular field, such as visual and performing arts, communication or athletic endeavors; special skills, such as demonstrated written and oral proficiency in other languages; special interests, such as intensive study and exploration of other cultures; experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership, such as significant community service or significant participation in student government; or other significant experiences or achievements that demonstrate the student's promise for contributing to the intellectual vitality of a campus."
Notably absent is achievement in any STEM field.
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/fres...
"Special talents, achievements and awards in a particular field, such as visual and performing arts, communication or athletic endeavors; special skills, such as demonstrated written and oral proficiency in other languages; special interests, such as intensive study and exploration of other cultures; experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership, such as significant community service or significant participation in student government; or other significant experiences or achievements that demonstrate the student's promise for contributing to the intellectual vitality of a campus."
Notably absent is achievement in any STEM field.
> Notably absent is achievement in any STEM field.
It's covered by the first line of your quoted comment, right? "Special talents, achievements and awards in a particular field."
It's covered by the first line of your quoted comment, right? "Special talents, achievements and awards in a particular field."
...such as visual and performing arts, communication or athletic endeavors. The lack of emphasis on STEM in the examples is apparent.
As a native English speaker I read "such as" to mean "including but not limited to."
STEM is a field (although still broad) and they are looking for accomplishment in a field.
STEM is a field (although still broad) and they are looking for accomplishment in a field.
STEM is a very broad field, and core, not an incidental.
Lot of room for accomplishment in a broad field!
[deleted]
I’m curious why we’d expect achievements in STEM at the age of 16/17, when students are applying for college.
To keep this in perspective, kids haven’t even taken Science 101 at this point.
And the exceptional students who have won Olympiad golds or created open source software, etc, would more than be covered by the “special talents, achievements and awards in any field” section.
To keep this in perspective, kids haven’t even taken Science 101 at this point.
And the exceptional students who have won Olympiad golds or created open source software, etc, would more than be covered by the “special talents, achievements and awards in any field” section.
> I’m curious why we’d expect achievements in STEM at the age of 16/17, when students are applying for college.
A student in my dorm had designed and built a computer using random TTL chips while in high school. Me, I'd torn a car completely to pieces, rebuilt the engine, and put it back together.
A student in my dorm had designed and built a computer using random TTL chips while in high school. Me, I'd torn a car completely to pieces, rebuilt the engine, and put it back together.
Is this true? Not American when I was in school by 16 you would expected to know some physics, chemistry, biology and even computer science to some extent…
In physics 16 year olds have already been thought classical mechanics, optics and electro magnetism…
In physics 16 year olds have already been thought classical mechanics, optics and electro magnetism…
Kids with parents in the field can easily accomplish things (with a little help)
Defeats the whole meritocratic element tho, makes you think about the real reason behind this
Defeats the whole meritocratic element tho, makes you think about the real reason behind this
[deleted]
[deleted]
I for one welcome the UC systems choice to erode the signaling value of their degree. Hopefully more universities adopt this approach. Employers may in turn value said degrees less and eventually maybe we can burn down all of higher ed.
I agree and not even remotely jokingly. Higher education outside of STEM has been nonsense for quite some time. Inside of STEM, it has been an outdated form of education for just as long. The encroachment of socialism into the educational sphere needs to accelerate. The sooner it destroys itself the better.
That's great if your only requirement is to train software developers to write CRUD apps - you can learn to do that by watching youtube videos, reading self-study materials, and taking MOOC classes - but if you want mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, and be a leader in materials science or chip manufacturing, then you still need universities.
So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status in which only immigrants educated in more sane institutions overseas drive all of the technological innovation.
I just don't see a how a nation can build state of the art planes, missiles, satellites, ships, and chips if its universities decide to eliminate objective measures of intelligence.
So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status in which only immigrants educated in more sane institutions overseas drive all of the technological innovation.
I just don't see a how a nation can build state of the art planes, missiles, satellites, ships, and chips if its universities decide to eliminate objective measures of intelligence.
I learned absolutely nothing in my degree that I couldn't have learned from a book. In fact, everything I learned in my degree was from a book. The lecturers themselves were often terrible, and the lectures would have been far better if I was watching them on youtube and could rewind anyway.
The future learning institutes will simply be places that administers tests and organize group projects at 1/10th the cost of current universities.
The future learning institutes will simply be places that administers tests and organize group projects at 1/10th the cost of current universities.
I don’t believe objective measures of intelligence tell you all that much about someone.
There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who for various reasons accomplish nothing and plenty of dropouts bringing enormous value to the world.
There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who for various reasons accomplish nothing and plenty of dropouts bringing enormous value to the world.
I don’t think objective measures of physical strength tell you much about someone either, but if you’re testing strength to find the strongest people (for whatever reason), I’d still recommend using standardized methods.
How many dropouts have successfully designed a jet engine? any of the critical parts on a rocket? a suspension bridge? a building more than 10 stories high? a submarine hull? a utility powerplant?
How many have been given the opportunity to do so? Could a pure apprenticeship model without universities (but still with lots of theory) work for engineering professions?
Lambda School shows it doesn't work for software engineering. A so-called "apprenticeship" model for something like mechanical engineering would basically be the exact same set of (difficult) math and physics courses but without the garbage breadth requirements, which doesn't exactly sound attractive to dropouts.
without the garbage breadth requirements, which doesn't exactly sound attractive to dropouts.
Idk, I can imagine a class of "dropout" who would find that very appealing.
And I've worked with devs who used Lambda or other bootcamps to transition from another technical/professional career into software, so it's not a completely useless model.
Idk, I can imagine a class of "dropout" who would find that very appealing.
And I've worked with devs who used Lambda or other bootcamps to transition from another technical/professional career into software, so it's not a completely useless model.
Or maybe Lambda school doesn’t work?
Society doesn't operate on the level of outliers and anecdotes, though. This seems like a common mistake people make. Making small changes to how well we're educating people over large numbers and over time will make big differences.
It’s not solely sufficient, but absolutely the baseline for excellence in any technical field.
> I don’t believe objective measures of intelligence don’t tell you all that much about someone.
Unfortunately that's not true. And we have a lot of data that this isn't true.
I recommend reading "The Ape That Understood the Universe" for an overview https://www.amazon.com/Ape-that-Understood-Universe-Culture/...
Part of the problem here is that people feel qualified to weigh in with their feelings of how they want the world to be, completely ignoring all the evidence and data. It's that type of confident denial of reality that is at the heart of this UC decision
"Well, my uncle Jim is really smart and he was always bad at tests!"
That's basically the level of discourse happening here when making public policy, and it's shameful.
Unfortunately that's not true. And we have a lot of data that this isn't true.
I recommend reading "The Ape That Understood the Universe" for an overview https://www.amazon.com/Ape-that-Understood-Universe-Culture/...
Part of the problem here is that people feel qualified to weigh in with their feelings of how they want the world to be, completely ignoring all the evidence and data. It's that type of confident denial of reality that is at the heart of this UC decision
"Well, my uncle Jim is really smart and he was always bad at tests!"
That's basically the level of discourse happening here when making public policy, and it's shameful.
> So the price of this "equity" movement is going to be (and always was) mass de-industrialization and transforming the economy to third world status
I also disagree with these sort of decisions but this seems a bit hyperbolic. Certain institutions will probably admit fewer students who are able to excel in those fields, and if the change is large enough it will affect the quality of those degree programs (although in probably any admissions process talented students will be better able to game it).
But the likely eventual outcome to that seems like it would be other institutions attracting the most talented students and professors. It's hard for me to imagine every single university getting on board with this, although I could imagine STEM being increasingly concentrated at universities with that focus like Caltech instead of general liberal-arts schools.
It also might be kind of interesting if the brightest students tried to excel more in things that aren't directly competitive (kind of like Thiel fellows), although I don't think that's the purpose behind these sorts of changes.
I also disagree with these sort of decisions but this seems a bit hyperbolic. Certain institutions will probably admit fewer students who are able to excel in those fields, and if the change is large enough it will affect the quality of those degree programs (although in probably any admissions process talented students will be better able to game it).
But the likely eventual outcome to that seems like it would be other institutions attracting the most talented students and professors. It's hard for me to imagine every single university getting on board with this, although I could imagine STEM being increasingly concentrated at universities with that focus like Caltech instead of general liberal-arts schools.
It also might be kind of interesting if the brightest students tried to excel more in things that aren't directly competitive (kind of like Thiel fellows), although I don't think that's the purpose behind these sorts of changes.
"It's hard for me to imagine every single university getting on board with this"
Think for a bit how many things that were hard to imagine 10 years ago are now common place in the corporate world. Social conformity pressure is a real b*tch. The best we can hope is that the occasional larger-than-life professor will be left alone to teach his craft the way he sees fit. Pray that your kids have a chance to meet one of them and the wisdom to subject themselves to the gauntlet.
Think for a bit how many things that were hard to imagine 10 years ago are now common place in the corporate world. Social conformity pressure is a real b*tch. The best we can hope is that the occasional larger-than-life professor will be left alone to teach his craft the way he sees fit. Pray that your kids have a chance to meet one of them and the wisdom to subject themselves to the gauntlet.
The corporate world isn't a bad analogy. But corporates are still by and large very profitable, some companies operate as they always have (although that isn't newsworthy, and it isn't a marketing point), and on this specific topic (testing) leetcode type questions are still ubiquitous.
If social trends seriously impaired companies' competitiveness I might expect to see the companies that are more on board underperform. But when I think of recent corporate failures (maybe Google failing to compete with FB on chat / VR / Google plus etc), garden variety mismanagement still seems like it has more impact.
So I also disagree with the policy, but worrying about "transforming the economy to third world status" like the OP seems like it is going overboard. If suboptimal policy choices or social trends destroyed society it would have been destroyed a long time ago many times over (and San Francisco wouldn't be a startup hub).
If social trends seriously impaired companies' competitiveness I might expect to see the companies that are more on board underperform. But when I think of recent corporate failures (maybe Google failing to compete with FB on chat / VR / Google plus etc), garden variety mismanagement still seems like it has more impact.
So I also disagree with the policy, but worrying about "transforming the economy to third world status" like the OP seems like it is going overboard. If suboptimal policy choices or social trends destroyed society it would have been destroyed a long time ago many times over (and San Francisco wouldn't be a startup hub).
Post-stalinist Soviet Union, while not manically murderous, eventually imploded under the weight of a myriad suboptimal policy choices. Alas, it took 40 years to do so. There is a lot of inertia, I don't think anyone is arguing that UC (or Google) will collapse next year, but that the weight of poor policy choices compounds over time.
Re "mass de-industrialization", there is a historical reference, specifically the complete bankruptcy of ex Soviet block industry in the '90s, being sold for pennies to Western investors to bulldoze it and build something else in its place. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do wonder how US/China rivalry will play out in the 2040s and beyond.
Re "mass de-industrialization", there is a historical reference, specifically the complete bankruptcy of ex Soviet block industry in the '90s, being sold for pennies to Western investors to bulldoze it and build something else in its place. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do wonder how US/China rivalry will play out in the 2040s and beyond.
I think it's useful to explore historical perspectives, but there are many others. If I look at my parents' generation in the US, people were being forced against their will to fight overseas in a war that didn't achieve anything (and involved mass poisoning the crops of substance farmers). You had double-digit inflation, rationing gas by license plate, and, at points, literal price controls.
Before the baby boomers we had global war, before that the great depression and growing literal communism, before that prohibition and the mob. And of course prohibition was prompted by social problems around alcohol.
So I don't think "problems compound" is always true. For a long time, teen pregnancy and alcohol use were on the rise, but that trend didn't continue indefinitely, and both have relatively recently had dramatic declines.
If you look closely enough at any time period there are often multiple serious political, economic, and/or social problems, so much so that it seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
> Post-stalinist Soviet Union, while not manically murderous, eventually imploded under the weight of a myriad suboptimal policy choices
Even this I'm not so sure. Here is a graph of their GDP [1]. My understanding is it was a political collapse first (a failed coup), and the economic collapse followed. An example that I've read China has been very mindful of (apparently Xi talks about Russia much more in his books than he does the US).
> I do wonder how US/China rivalry will play out in the 2040s and beyond.
Me too, at that point they'll probably be a much larger economy than the US. Will that have a destabilizing effect (especially with a potential military conflict over Taiwan)? Or will (the US) having a shared rival be somewhat unifying? The UK did OK despite declining in (relative) importance, but I could imagine the US struggling with its domestic problems even without any great power rivalry...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP_per_capi...
Before the baby boomers we had global war, before that the great depression and growing literal communism, before that prohibition and the mob. And of course prohibition was prompted by social problems around alcohol.
So I don't think "problems compound" is always true. For a long time, teen pregnancy and alcohol use were on the rise, but that trend didn't continue indefinitely, and both have relatively recently had dramatic declines.
If you look closely enough at any time period there are often multiple serious political, economic, and/or social problems, so much so that it seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
> Post-stalinist Soviet Union, while not manically murderous, eventually imploded under the weight of a myriad suboptimal policy choices
Even this I'm not so sure. Here is a graph of their GDP [1]. My understanding is it was a political collapse first (a failed coup), and the economic collapse followed. An example that I've read China has been very mindful of (apparently Xi talks about Russia much more in his books than he does the US).
> I do wonder how US/China rivalry will play out in the 2040s and beyond.
Me too, at that point they'll probably be a much larger economy than the US. Will that have a destabilizing effect (especially with a potential military conflict over Taiwan)? Or will (the US) having a shared rival be somewhat unifying? The UK did OK despite declining in (relative) importance, but I could imagine the US struggling with its domestic problems even without any great power rivalry...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP_per_capi...
Life in the '80s in the Soviet Union space was marred by widespread food shortages. Here is a fairly accurate video of how the usual grocery shop looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE When the sporadic food supply truck would show up, people would line up for hours, many only to leave empty handed when the load would inevitably run out.
In 1989 Boris Yeltsin visited Texan grocery store and was positively shocked by the choice and availability. https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/When...
This is the very tangible result of suboptimal choices.
But I agree, life in the '90s, post collapse, was even worse. I read it as a warning that embarking on a suboptimal choice course may be hard to steer back until reality forces a very harsh collapse.
In 1989 Boris Yeltsin visited Texan grocery store and was positively shocked by the choice and availability. https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/When...
This is the very tangible result of suboptimal choices.
But I agree, life in the '90s, post collapse, was even worse. I read it as a warning that embarking on a suboptimal choice course may be hard to steer back until reality forces a very harsh collapse.
> This is the very tangible result of suboptimal choices.
I agree - I've always liked that story about the grocery store.
I don't think bad policies are something that can be straightforwardly extrapolated into a course to the Soviet Union though. The US has had price controls in the past but backed off. Even large welfare states like Sweden eventually hit a point where they stopped or turned back the expansion of the public sector (reducing marginal rates, eliminating wealth taxes, spending as % of GDP leveling off, etc).
The Soviet Union even collapsed while it was heading in a more positive direction from where they were at (reducing state political and economic control).
So there doesn't seem to me to be a straightforward connection between incremental policy changes and collapse.
I don't see a clear connection between collapse and subsequent "steering back" either. Support for the market economy and multiparty democracy in Russia are both at record lows [1]. Venezuela has undergone an economic collapse but is still very dysfunctional. Neither seems on track to catch up with western countries any time soon.
It's interesting to contrast this with China, which had similar issues to the Soviet Union (of having an inefficient state-run economy) and had heavy debate about how to go about reforming it [2]. At least for their economic prospects the incremental path they chose seems to be working out better.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Escaped-Therapy-Routledge-Studies-Chi...
I agree - I've always liked that story about the grocery store.
I don't think bad policies are something that can be straightforwardly extrapolated into a course to the Soviet Union though. The US has had price controls in the past but backed off. Even large welfare states like Sweden eventually hit a point where they stopped or turned back the expansion of the public sector (reducing marginal rates, eliminating wealth taxes, spending as % of GDP leveling off, etc).
The Soviet Union even collapsed while it was heading in a more positive direction from where they were at (reducing state political and economic control).
So there doesn't seem to me to be a straightforward connection between incremental policy changes and collapse.
I don't see a clear connection between collapse and subsequent "steering back" either. Support for the market economy and multiparty democracy in Russia are both at record lows [1]. Venezuela has undergone an economic collapse but is still very dysfunctional. Neither seems on track to catch up with western countries any time soon.
It's interesting to contrast this with China, which had similar issues to the Soviet Union (of having an inefficient state-run economy) and had heavy debate about how to go about reforming it [2]. At least for their economic prospects the incremental path they chose seems to be working out better.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Escaped-Therapy-Routledge-Studies-Chi...
These are all good points. Perhaps it is time to inquire why did SU run an inefficient state-run economy for 40 years after the manic dictator was gone. Without going into too many details, the justification, even the imperative, for said policies was made in the moral dimension. As tragically exemplified by SU, there are policy systems that feed on failure. The more the policy fails to deliver the desired results, the more it's taken as evidence that the moral problem the policy purports to fix is actually deeper rooted and requires even more radical policies. Until you get to the point where the entire economic activity is controlled by the state because individuals, full of moral failings as they are, can't be trusted with charting their own course.
I have to say that my American friends have a much higher confidence in the pendulum theory. Coming of age near the end of a 40 (70?) year historical tailspin, I have a somewhat less optimistic view.
I have to say that my American friends have a much higher confidence in the pendulum theory. Coming of age near the end of a 40 (70?) year historical tailspin, I have a somewhat less optimistic view.
Sure, the US is certainly not immune to that dynamic. For example dysfunctional regulation restricts the housing supply (in certain areas), causing the prices to be high. Then left-wing politicians will point to the high prices as a failure of capitalism and oppose new development.
But the political coalitions here (and even the economics) are somewhat complicated. For example, California recently passed several bills to de-regulate housing, which were initiatives of (a sub-faction of) the left-leaning party that controls the state. And the right-leaning party is not a technocratic one like Singapore - an important sub-faction of the right-leaning party goes against advice by economists themselves, on macro issues and increasingly on trade also.
The non-economic factions are more poised to benefit from dysfunction, and in my view, also more likely to cause dysfunction, and so enable each other. So my view is also more similar to a tailspin than a pendulum. Just that it is not as simple as trying as hard as possible to displace the establishment, because the people best positioned to replace them are often worse.
There is another, darker, argument, which I've seen presented by some fairly well-informed people. It goes something like this: the industrial revolution, with its huge inequality, financial crash, and the eventual fall to authoritarianism around the world, is, in fact, the natural order of things. And this has been papered over by massive economic distortions by governments starting with WWII, along with perpetually increasing debt levels as interest rates decline (which since debt and savings are two sides of the same coin, allows overall savings to increase and makes things less zero-sum).
With this premise, there is no natural politically-stable state to return to, and the path for managing outcomes that maintain public support for capitalism becomes even more narrow. I'm still thinking about it, but (unfortunately) I've found the arguments pretty compelling (from billionaire capitalist Ray Dalio [1], among others).
[1] https://economicprinciples.org/
But the political coalitions here (and even the economics) are somewhat complicated. For example, California recently passed several bills to de-regulate housing, which were initiatives of (a sub-faction of) the left-leaning party that controls the state. And the right-leaning party is not a technocratic one like Singapore - an important sub-faction of the right-leaning party goes against advice by economists themselves, on macro issues and increasingly on trade also.
The non-economic factions are more poised to benefit from dysfunction, and in my view, also more likely to cause dysfunction, and so enable each other. So my view is also more similar to a tailspin than a pendulum. Just that it is not as simple as trying as hard as possible to displace the establishment, because the people best positioned to replace them are often worse.
There is another, darker, argument, which I've seen presented by some fairly well-informed people. It goes something like this: the industrial revolution, with its huge inequality, financial crash, and the eventual fall to authoritarianism around the world, is, in fact, the natural order of things. And this has been papered over by massive economic distortions by governments starting with WWII, along with perpetually increasing debt levels as interest rates decline (which since debt and savings are two sides of the same coin, allows overall savings to increase and makes things less zero-sum).
With this premise, there is no natural politically-stable state to return to, and the path for managing outcomes that maintain public support for capitalism becomes even more narrow. I'm still thinking about it, but (unfortunately) I've found the arguments pretty compelling (from billionaire capitalist Ray Dalio [1], among others).
[1] https://economicprinciples.org/
I wonder what kind of bizarre, dysfunctional thought process would lead one to desire the complete destruction of all higher education.
I am down for higher education that includes technical schools and apprenticeships as well. Colleges are great! What I am not OK with is creating illiberal propaganda machines using public funds where no dissent is allowed and adolescents at a tender age get to them hypersensitized to identity and identity-politics. Fuck everything about that.
Edit: adolescents at a tender age get hypersensitized to identity and identity-politics.
Because of unstable home issues, I was unable to do well in high school classes because I couldn't spend time outside of school studying and doing homework assignments.
But I did extremely well on the SAT, and PSAT, which got me several scholarships and college admission.
Without the SAT to accurately gauge my potential, I wouldn't have succeeded.
This is a disgusting new policy, and will harm people.
But I did extremely well on the SAT, and PSAT, which got me several scholarships and college admission.
Without the SAT to accurately gauge my potential, I wouldn't have succeeded.
This is a disgusting new policy, and will harm people.
"faculty could find no alternative exam that would avoid the biased results"
They are too weak to say "SAT hasn't produced the results we wanted, so we're going to..."
"seek more equitable ways to assess a student"
They're again, too weak to say "from now on, admissions will be based on color".
"the state exam ... would disproportionately favor Asian Americans"
Oh, the horror, tests show that Asians are smart. Can't let that happen.
If a square peg doesn't fit a round hole, we just need to use a bigger hammer.
They are too weak to say "SAT hasn't produced the results we wanted, so we're going to..."
"seek more equitable ways to assess a student"
They're again, too weak to say "from now on, admissions will be based on color".
"the state exam ... would disproportionately favor Asian Americans"
Oh, the horror, tests show that Asians are smart. Can't let that happen.
If a square peg doesn't fit a round hole, we just need to use a bigger hammer.
It really is madness. "We tested as many ways as we could think of, but we couldn't game it to get the results we want so we just decided testing doesn't work". These are the people in charge of training our children, and they think this these are valid conclusions.
Another way to look at this is, like so many things, a conflict of visions.
Vision one is that college is an elite institution meant to bring together smart, rich, and connected people in a learning and growth environment. This is sort of a perti-dish of success. In this vision, standardized tests bring in the smart people to compliment the rich and connected.
Vision two is that college is an institution for everyone to have a chance to get ahead. It's a natural extension of high school as we move into a period where we depend on knowledge workers. In this vision, standardized tests exclude people from opportunities.
Clearly the UC is adopting vision two. Whether the tests are racist or not is a distraction.
The problem with vision one is basic fairness, especially when public money is involved.
The problem with vision two is that, if we want real success, we do need elite institutions to concentrate a mix of people likely to produce amazing things. And also, I predict that the noble shine of college as a gateway to opportunity will wear off pretty quickly once they cease being elite institutions, and succumb to bureaucratic stupidity and financial recklessness.
Vision one is that college is an elite institution meant to bring together smart, rich, and connected people in a learning and growth environment. This is sort of a perti-dish of success. In this vision, standardized tests bring in the smart people to compliment the rich and connected.
Vision two is that college is an institution for everyone to have a chance to get ahead. It's a natural extension of high school as we move into a period where we depend on knowledge workers. In this vision, standardized tests exclude people from opportunities.
Clearly the UC is adopting vision two. Whether the tests are racist or not is a distraction.
The problem with vision one is basic fairness, especially when public money is involved.
The problem with vision two is that, if we want real success, we do need elite institutions to concentrate a mix of people likely to produce amazing things. And also, I predict that the noble shine of college as a gateway to opportunity will wear off pretty quickly once they cease being elite institutions, and succumb to bureaucratic stupidity and financial recklessness.
I see a hope here. Educational system seems broken in USA: the costs of education are insanely high, but you need the diploma in order to get a good job, so the costs will keep growing, because why not (from the perspective of the universities). And this perfectly designed system to extract money from everyone... just decided to destroy itself from inside. If universities become stupid enough, so that employers stop preferring people who have a diploma, there will no longer be a reason to pay. The universities can become ideological strongholds for the woke, but most of the population will simply ignore them.
There are a few problems with this hope, though. First, what about research? Second, government can protect universities, regardless of their quality, by requiring a university diploma if you want to work for any public institution.
> Vision two is that college is an institution for everyone to have a chance to get ahead.
Although I like the sentiment, the only way to actually achieve it would be to make the college free and with no admission tests (that is, there is literally a place for everyone, including insane or retarded people). Otherwise, there will still exist criteria that separate the "diploma haves" from the "diploma have nots", only those criteria will be less transparent than now.
There are a few problems with this hope, though. First, what about research? Second, government can protect universities, regardless of their quality, by requiring a university diploma if you want to work for any public institution.
> Vision two is that college is an institution for everyone to have a chance to get ahead.
Although I like the sentiment, the only way to actually achieve it would be to make the college free and with no admission tests (that is, there is literally a place for everyone, including insane or retarded people). Otherwise, there will still exist criteria that separate the "diploma haves" from the "diploma have nots", only those criteria will be less transparent than now.
As a Cal grad this is an easy reason to point to the next time I reject an alumni donation call.
If the goal is to accept more students on merit, this is a big failure in my opinion: rich kids can just game the “holistic” admissions with opportunities not available to middle/lower class students (“volunteer” trips, extracurriculars, etc.).
If the goal is to accept more students on merit, this is a big failure in my opinion: rich kids can just game the “holistic” admissions with opportunities not available to middle/lower class students (“volunteer” trips, extracurriculars, etc.).
Can they “game” themselves into being designated as African American?
California public universities are not allowed to look at race in admissions, so gaming racial designation wouldn't help.
Sometimes names, surnames and neighborhood are sufficient in some cases, I'd imagine.
Or 90th percentile on standardized tests. Can't have them entering on aptitude alone.
I wanted to acknowledge you but I'm not sure I understand this reply, perhaps I can revisit it later and give you a better formed response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
And more do Native American. That's an easier one to check on the checkboxes for whites. That's why there has been an exponential increase of the self-identified "Native American" population since the 1960s. Elizabeth Warren is one of the more famous self-identified Native Americans (her siblings never knew they were).
In the last census their increase has been the most in the richest counties in the US with the most number of applications to elite colleges.
And more do Native American. That's an easier one to check on the checkboxes for whites. That's why there has been an exponential increase of the self-identified "Native American" population since the 1960s. Elizabeth Warren is one of the more famous self-identified Native Americans (her siblings never knew they were).
In the last census their increase has been the most in the richest counties in the US with the most number of applications to elite colleges.
To be fair to her siblings, they didn't know they were Native American because they were not in fact Native American.
That's why they should have to list tribe enrolled & blood quantum. At this point, I wish the tribes could sue these people for fraud. The continued closing of doors on the most downtrodden minority is pathetic.
I'm 1/8th. Is that enough? 1/4th? Where's the line?
My state gave out grants to small businesses during the pandemic and directly said on the application that preference would be given to minorities. I didn't check both white and native only because a local organization would be dispersing the funds and I live in a rural area.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of "reverse" racism. That was my state government all but telling me that my small business didn't deserve funds because I'm (mostly) white.
My state gave out grants to small businesses during the pandemic and directly said on the application that preference would be given to minorities. I didn't check both white and native only because a local organization would be dispersing the funds and I live in a rural area.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of "reverse" racism. That was my state government all but telling me that my small business didn't deserve funds because I'm (mostly) white.
Well, the US government has 1/4 but some tribes go down to 1/8. If the position / scholarship says decent the tribes have that documentation too. You can get a document that says you are not enrolled but are a descendent of the tribe. If you are talking about the COVID funding, I think some documentation from the tribe that you are 1/8 in would suffice. Also check the tribal constitution and minority business rules of your state.
I'm not going to comment on reverse racism, but if a position or grant was set aside for a Native American then claiming heritage one does not have is bs.
I'm not going to comment on reverse racism, but if a position or grant was set aside for a Native American then claiming heritage one does not have is bs.
In our family it was a secret - my grandma died thinking she was 100% German and my great aunt still thinks that. They just think that’s what people from southern Germany look like.
However, my great grandpa didn’t inherit the farm he was supposed to because he married the “wrong” woman. That combined with how they look gave a hypothesis and DNA testing on me proved it.
So there’s no real documentation, and I don’t know for sure what tribe I descended from.
The point wasn’t that there was money set aside for Native Americans, but that it was set aside for anyone other than white people. That’s straight up wrong, and if black person could have checked a “white” checkbox to circumvent discrimination in the 50s I would have been all for it too.
However, my great grandpa didn’t inherit the farm he was supposed to because he married the “wrong” woman. That combined with how they look gave a hypothesis and DNA testing on me proved it.
So there’s no real documentation, and I don’t know for sure what tribe I descended from.
The point wasn’t that there was money set aside for Native Americans, but that it was set aside for anyone other than white people. That’s straight up wrong, and if black person could have checked a “white” checkbox to circumvent discrimination in the 50s I would have been all for it too.
Well the blood thing is just a complete nonsense way of assessing oppression/opportunities. Someone who is the child of a full blood Native American who was working as a bartender when she met a white corporate lawyer that she later married and moved to Bethesda lives a completely different life to a child growing up on the reservation. That’s why you’ll find that income-based affirmative action has vastly more support than race. I personally would have no problems with my kid losing a spot in something to a kid who got similar scores to him with a tenth of the family income, because I know that the latter is a strictly tougher thing to do.
Well, tribes have their own type of sovereignty in this country and, for the most part, Native Americans moving off reservation has been a disaster, particularly when forced (the suicide rate is extreme).
We live in a country that has special programs for certain races. If those programs continue to exist, then the money / opportunity set aside for Native Americans should actually be used by people provably Native Americans.
We live in a country that has special programs for certain races. If those programs continue to exist, then the money / opportunity set aside for Native Americans should actually be used by people provably Native Americans.
> We live in a country that has special programs for certain races.
Yes, and those programs are immoral if they give a boost to the child of a Nigerian immigrant cardiothoracic surgeon for reasons ostensibly rooted in the oppression of American slavery.
Yes, and those programs are immoral if they give a boost to the child of a Nigerian immigrant cardiothoracic surgeon for reasons ostensibly rooted in the oppression of American slavery.
> I didn't check both white and native only because a local organization would be dispersing the funds and I live in a rural area.
I don’t see the logic. Are you saying that you’d become persona non grata in a small community for claiming these funds?
I don’t see the logic. Are you saying that you’d become persona non grata in a small community for claiming these funds?
That was the fear. It didn’t seem worth the risk in today’s climate. I try to keep my business non-political.
just get an african citizenship and maybe get adopted/marry a non white household to melt commision hearts!
UC schools have already become dubious - the entitlement of grads, the actual LACK of skills, not remotely "hungry" enough to have any grit or motivation, etc.
My father (an engineering manager) always said: "If you want GOOD employees, you never want to hire from UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech, etc. The best engineers in California come from Cal Poly SLO and Cal Poly Pomona. They are actually trained as engineers".
This is only proving that a college degree is not enough to qualify most graduates for any job. Better to hire from 2nd tier schools instead and even to consider HS grads on some cases. If they are more trainable than your typical entitled university degree holder, they are a better ROI, hands-down.
My father (an engineering manager) always said: "If you want GOOD employees, you never want to hire from UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech, etc. The best engineers in California come from Cal Poly SLO and Cal Poly Pomona. They are actually trained as engineers".
This is only proving that a college degree is not enough to qualify most graduates for any job. Better to hire from 2nd tier schools instead and even to consider HS grads on some cases. If they are more trainable than your typical entitled university degree holder, they are a better ROI, hands-down.
> They are actually trained as engineers
Caltech's engineering program doesn't actually train you to design machines, or how to operate a milling machine, or how to assemble an internal combustion engine. You can certainly get an engineering degree without ever getting grease under your fingernails. What it does do is teach you math. Every class is a math class. Statics, dynamics, newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, electromagnetics are all math, math, math, math, math.
What you wind up with is not being afraid of math, and you've got some very powerful tools. Grease under your fingernails is learned on the job. But almost nobody ever learns math on the job.
I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math. They'll always be second tier engineers.
Caltech's engineering program doesn't actually train you to design machines, or how to operate a milling machine, or how to assemble an internal combustion engine. You can certainly get an engineering degree without ever getting grease under your fingernails. What it does do is teach you math. Every class is a math class. Statics, dynamics, newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, electromagnetics are all math, math, math, math, math.
What you wind up with is not being afraid of math, and you've got some very powerful tools. Grease under your fingernails is learned on the job. But almost nobody ever learns math on the job.
I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math. They'll always be second tier engineers.
I remember signing up for a political science class at Caltech that was called something like "American politics in the 20th century." The professor began the course by saying, "Let us consider an N-dimensional policy space, S, with a set of M candidate feature vectors, {C}, ...."
Sounds useful for applying that to (realtime) Delphi-Method, prediction markets,
and so on.
You are using a lot of handwaving to try to get across the finish line. Let's tease this apart:
1. "math vs no-math". All engineers learn math. Some are afraid of it. At elite unis, it's fair to say those afraid are weeded out. That does not mean that most who attend mid-tier schools are afraid of math, or don't know math -- that's wildly false.
2. "engineering versus operating". Elite unis prepare you better to go into research, which is not engineering. Yet you are pretending that research is engineering and that what other schools do is teach you how to "operate a milling machine", which is again wildly inaccurate and condescending. Other schools teach you to build stuff and have less emphasis on theory. At elite unis there is more emphasis on theory and less on building stuff.
3. "I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math" Yes, as a mathematician I know a lot of engineers who think they know math because they like to throw around words like SDEs, or think they are math heroes for studying a bit of functional analysis or linear programming. But their knowledge is pretty shallow, which is fine. What's not fine is it often comes at the expense of knowing how to build or design things well. That is a real risk with the more theoretically educated engineer, just as not knowing theory well is a real risk for the more practically educated engineer. Also a lot of theoretically trained engineers tend to be quite condescending and arrogant, not realizing how poor their math knowledge actually is.
Fortunately elite and regular engineering schools today do produce good students. The main advantage of the elite school is sorting - smarter students attend these schools, which means on average they are better at their area of study. Caltech is notable for resisting the "equity" tide and still requiring standardized scores, so I'd hire from them if I needed someone to assist in more theoretical areas, or someone looking for a career change into a more practical area. I would be much more circumspect when it comes to UC schools. I would also hire from lower-tiered schools but would require more screening.
1. "math vs no-math". All engineers learn math. Some are afraid of it. At elite unis, it's fair to say those afraid are weeded out. That does not mean that most who attend mid-tier schools are afraid of math, or don't know math -- that's wildly false.
2. "engineering versus operating". Elite unis prepare you better to go into research, which is not engineering. Yet you are pretending that research is engineering and that what other schools do is teach you how to "operate a milling machine", which is again wildly inaccurate and condescending. Other schools teach you to build stuff and have less emphasis on theory. At elite unis there is more emphasis on theory and less on building stuff.
3. "I've known many engineers who were competent mechanics, but were terrified of math" Yes, as a mathematician I know a lot of engineers who think they know math because they like to throw around words like SDEs, or think they are math heroes for studying a bit of functional analysis or linear programming. But their knowledge is pretty shallow, which is fine. What's not fine is it often comes at the expense of knowing how to build or design things well. That is a real risk with the more theoretically educated engineer, just as not knowing theory well is a real risk for the more practically educated engineer. Also a lot of theoretically trained engineers tend to be quite condescending and arrogant, not realizing how poor their math knowledge actually is.
Fortunately elite and regular engineering schools today do produce good students. The main advantage of the elite school is sorting - smarter students attend these schools, which means on average they are better at their area of study. Caltech is notable for resisting the "equity" tide and still requiring standardized scores, so I'd hire from them if I needed someone to assist in more theoretical areas, or someone looking for a career change into a more practical area. I would be much more circumspect when it comes to UC schools. I would also hire from lower-tiered schools but would require more screening.
> That does not mean that most who attend mid-tier schools are afraid of math, or don't know math -- that's wildly false.
That logically does not follow from my statements. Mathematically, (A implies B) does not imply (not A implies not B).
> Yet you are pretending that research is engineering
Nope, that does not follow, either. Theory != research.
> Other schools teach you to build stuff and have less emphasis on theory
Operating a milling machine is an accurate summation for "building stuff". If you want to build stuff as an ME, you're going to have to learn how to use the machine tools.
> What's not fine is it often comes at the expense of knowing how to build or design things well.
Again, I specifically said Caltech didn't teach how to build or design. I also said that that part can be learned on the job, but that learning math on the job is something for unicorns.
> theoretically trained engineers tend to be quite condescending and arrogant, not realizing how poor their math knowledge actually is.
Yeah, well, I can vouch for the math skills of a BSME from Caltech are better than that of Masters degrees from other unis. Good enough to ace the math part of the GREs. PhD level is way beyond me, I topped out at variational calculus. I don't pretend to be a math major, that's also way beyond me. I didn't take any "math" classes beyond the required ones. I am certainly not a math whiz. I just had it beat into me in every class.
That logically does not follow from my statements. Mathematically, (A implies B) does not imply (not A implies not B).
> Yet you are pretending that research is engineering
Nope, that does not follow, either. Theory != research.
> Other schools teach you to build stuff and have less emphasis on theory
Operating a milling machine is an accurate summation for "building stuff". If you want to build stuff as an ME, you're going to have to learn how to use the machine tools.
> What's not fine is it often comes at the expense of knowing how to build or design things well.
Again, I specifically said Caltech didn't teach how to build or design. I also said that that part can be learned on the job, but that learning math on the job is something for unicorns.
> theoretically trained engineers tend to be quite condescending and arrogant, not realizing how poor their math knowledge actually is.
Yeah, well, I can vouch for the math skills of a BSME from Caltech are better than that of Masters degrees from other unis. Good enough to ace the math part of the GREs. PhD level is way beyond me, I topped out at variational calculus. I don't pretend to be a math major, that's also way beyond me. I didn't take any "math" classes beyond the required ones. I am certainly not a math whiz. I just had it beat into me in every class.
> You can certainly get an engineering degree without ever getting grease under your fingernails.
If that’s true for EE, I’m okay with no grease but you better have soldered something (the EE equivalent of a lathe).
If you get a degree in mechanical engineering without ever operating a milling machine and a lathe, I think you should get at least a partial refund.
If that’s true for EE, I’m okay with no grease but you better have soldered something (the EE equivalent of a lathe).
If you get a degree in mechanical engineering without ever operating a milling machine and a lathe, I think you should get at least a partial refund.
> If you want GOOD employees, you never want to hire from UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech, etc.
HAhahahahahaaaa (Caltech grad here. BTW, anyone who spells it Cal Tech knows next to nothing about Caltech.)
HAhahahahahaaaa (Caltech grad here. BTW, anyone who spells it Cal Tech knows next to nothing about Caltech.)
I have no problem with CalTech. I have several friends who work there. But... your comment does not reflect well on CalTech.
I don't think you're doing a good job of defending your alma mater, here. You may want to reconsider your comment, if that's your intent.
OTOH if you are being sarcastic and trying to insult CalTech, then by all means... Mission accomplished.
I don't think you're doing a good job of defending your alma mater, here. You may want to reconsider your comment, if that's your intent.
OTOH if you are being sarcastic and trying to insult CalTech, then by all means... Mission accomplished.
It's Caltech, not CalTech. https://www.caltech.edu/
Caltech doesn't need defending. I'm just amused at xyzzy21's comment.
Caltech doesn't need defending. I'm just amused at xyzzy21's comment.
Whether or not it needs defending, your comments just keep dragging it down.
How many Cal Poly SLO grads at Stripe (or choose any stratospheric make-you-rich company you like) compared to Stanford grads?
This person seems to be stating that grads of these schools are of good quality, not that they are necessarily successful in the workforce.
In my opinion, the biggest upside of CSU's is that they provide a vastly more diverse student body. There's a greater range of financial situations, age groups, and ethnicities. I feel this experience working with folks from a variety of backgrounds is an essential part of a strong candidate.
I'm personally not really on one side or another. "Alternative" paths (e.g. CSU's, community college, no school) seem to create candidates that have had a diverse life experience. Top UC's/private schools create candidates that are regarded as more academic.
That's just my take on it, and I feel that people being on one side or the other is mostly due to which of these stereotypes that person prefers.
In my opinion, the biggest upside of CSU's is that they provide a vastly more diverse student body. There's a greater range of financial situations, age groups, and ethnicities. I feel this experience working with folks from a variety of backgrounds is an essential part of a strong candidate.
I'm personally not really on one side or another. "Alternative" paths (e.g. CSU's, community college, no school) seem to create candidates that have had a diverse life experience. Top UC's/private schools create candidates that are regarded as more academic.
That's just my take on it, and I feel that people being on one side or the other is mostly due to which of these stereotypes that person prefers.
This might just be a numbers thing because their program isn't as large. It has a top-10 engineering program for schools that don't offer doctorates, so I'd be surprised if it's CS program isn't at least solid.
Show me how many GED students who had to fight certificate bias with get hired out of sheer skill.
At Stripe? None, to the best of my knowledge. It is what it is, sorry.
You don't have to be sorry, I'm lucky to be comfy with my current workplace. To me though, this is the dividing line in places that care about abilities, and places that are focused on 'checking boxes'.
“ This is only proving that a college degree is not enough to qualify most graduates for any job. Better to hire from 2nd tier schools instead and even to consider HS grads on some cases.”
How many students from Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley founded their own companies? How many from cal poly?
Why the massive difference?
How many students from Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley founded their own companies? How many from cal poly?
Why the massive difference?
That's a backwards-looking indicator; the changes to admissions criteria under discussion now will have their effect upon businesses of the future.
Family wealth, for one.
Der_Einzige(1)
As Nasim Taleb said: The Most Intolerant Wins.
UC has a long slope to slide - down to the tipping point. As long as UC is not burnt right now, these expert wouldn't stand up and open their mouth, till there is no need to stand up anymore.
The solution, well, as Taleb said: we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. Stand up and fight right now.
The comments on these articles seem to generally come out in favor of standardized testing (specifically the SAT). I find that interesting because college admissions seemingly generalizes to candidate evaluation. And if you were to suggest a standard leetcode test for software engineering job candidates? Man, this place would go up in flames.
I’m not for or against these leetcode style tests, but I think the difference is that they see a correlation between admission test score and how well they’d actually do on the course. Can the companies using “leetcode” tests prove the same?
A common thing I see missed in arguments against like leetcode is that good hiring pipelines would not look at just leetcode scores. You want leetcode + good project + system design. Leetcode is excellent for testing data structures and algorithms, reasoning about code and edge case etc. These are absolutely necessary but not sufficient to build good software.
> And if you were to suggest a standard leetcode test for software engineering job candidates? Man, this place would go up in flames.
I'd love to have a standard test for software engineering jobs that was accepted in the place of building yet another 8-hour sample React app.
I'd love to have a standard test for software engineering jobs that was accepted in the place of building yet another 8-hour sample React app.
Singular leetcode exam with large enough cohort repeated let's say twice a year and then graded on curve done in reasonably secure and controlled testing center would seem pretty reasonable alternative. Do it one time, get high enough grade and then use it for rest of your career.
It starts to sound pretty enticing. Essentially a certification that at least one time you performed at certain level. Ofc, verification is bit more complicated, but not impossible anymore.
It starts to sound pretty enticing. Essentially a certification that at least one time you performed at certain level. Ofc, verification is bit more complicated, but not impossible anymore.
"UC admissions officers have said they were able to thoroughly evaluate the flood of applications without test scores"
Of course, there's no way to determine if they were thorough or not.
Of course, there's no way to determine if they were thorough or not.
hahah .... who will evaluate the evaluator's evaluations? Seems to be extremely subjective. May be they should go with a 50/50 split for SAT and the subjective criteria. This won't be perfect but both camps would be covered.
I’d love to see 2/3rds of the class admitted on long-standing, well-tested policies and the remainder allocated via whatever other processes the school wants to test.
Want to let in 1/9th via pure random lottery? Have at it!
Want to let in 1/9th via racial or socioeconomic profiling? Have at it!
Then look at successful completion rates of year 1, degree by year 4, degree by year 5, and position (as self-reported) 10 years after admission for each group.
Either we’ll discover that there’s a better way to do admissions or we’ll discover that the current way is close to optimal.
Want to let in 1/9th via pure random lottery? Have at it!
Want to let in 1/9th via racial or socioeconomic profiling? Have at it!
Then look at successful completion rates of year 1, degree by year 4, degree by year 5, and position (as self-reported) 10 years after admission for each group.
Either we’ll discover that there’s a better way to do admissions or we’ll discover that the current way is close to optimal.
Too much effort on racial equality in the admissions process, too little on ensuring success in college, graduation and beyond. My top 10 college was hyper focused on diversity admissions, but the graduation rate of the under represented population was under 50%. Students shifted down due one tier due have a much higher rate of success than students shifted up one tier.
If we want to be serious about equity and equal opportunity, we should focus on eliminating legacy.
If we want to be serious about equity and equal opportunity, we should focus on eliminating legacy.
Sounds like a UC degree is getting less and less valuable from a signaling perspective. They ignored the research results of their own team and professors which conclusively showed standardized testing was the highest signal for academic success across all races. Talk about political bureaucracy
Please clarify. My understanding is that it's the opposite.
Eg, quoting https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X2090211...
> Yet, the emphasis on test scores over grades in policy and practice recommendations stands in contrast to research showing high school grade point averages (HSGPAs) are stronger predictors than test scores of college outcomes (Bowen et al., 2009; Geiser & Santelices, 2007; Hiss & Franks, 2014; Kobrin et al., 2008).
Eg, quoting https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X2090211...
> Yet, the emphasis on test scores over grades in policy and practice recommendations stands in contrast to research showing high school grade point averages (HSGPAs) are stronger predictors than test scores of college outcomes (Bowen et al., 2009; Geiser & Santelices, 2007; Hiss & Franks, 2014; Kobrin et al., 2008).
And what about predictions based on GPA and test scores?
As has been in use at UC and just about everywhere else, up until now.
In math terms: just because predicts(A) > predicts(B), it does not follow that predicts(A) > predicts(A ∪ B).
As has been in use at UC and just about everywhere else, up until now.
In math terms: just because predicts(A) > predicts(B), it does not follow that predicts(A) > predicts(A ∪ B).
I take it you haven't consulted the references I listed second-hand? They are likely far more insightful than anything I can write here.
Before making my earlier comment, I read the start of the the Hiss and Franks paper is at https://web.archive.org/web/20140310113612/http://www.nacacn... to make sure the citation I gave wasn't misrepresenting the topic (it wasn't). Here's text from the abstract:
It "examines the outcomes of optional standardized testing policies in the Admissions offices at 33 public and private colleges and universities, based on cumulative GPA and graduation rates."
That is, UC isn't the first to do this, and we can look at real-world evidence from previous universities where test scores were optional, to gauge how useful test scores are and what effect they have.
It found: "Few significant differences between submitters and non-submitters of testing were observed in Cumulative GPAs and graduation rates, despite significant differences in SAT/ACT scores."
That is, SAT/ACT scores don't seem to affect metrics like Cumulative GPAs and graduation rates. (As I recall from elsewhere, they do correlate with first year grades, but that's a different and less important metric.)
Further: "Optional testing policies also help build broader access to higher education: non-submitters are more likely to be first-generation-to‐college students, minorities, Pell Grant recipients, women and students with Learning Differences."
That is, using SAT/ACT scores in the selection process appears to have measurable effect on the student population; reducing what is sometimes referred to as "diversity."
As to your correct observation, "it does not follow that predicts(A) > predicts(A ∪ B)", one of the issues is that college success is also correlated with other factors, including parental wealth. And success on the SAT/ACT is also correlated with parental wealth, who can afford special training on how to pass those tests.
We know this by looking at the early history of college boards, which emphasized the topics taught at prep schools (like Latin grammar) than public school, because college admissions preferred rich white male Protestants, who were likely to go to prep school.
To be clear, the SAT has done a lot of work to de-bias their tests, and I don't know enough about to topic to say anything what factors are actually involved.
But I don't need to, since the tests don't seem to be that effective in predicting college success.
Before making my earlier comment, I read the start of the the Hiss and Franks paper is at https://web.archive.org/web/20140310113612/http://www.nacacn... to make sure the citation I gave wasn't misrepresenting the topic (it wasn't). Here's text from the abstract:
It "examines the outcomes of optional standardized testing policies in the Admissions offices at 33 public and private colleges and universities, based on cumulative GPA and graduation rates."
That is, UC isn't the first to do this, and we can look at real-world evidence from previous universities where test scores were optional, to gauge how useful test scores are and what effect they have.
It found: "Few significant differences between submitters and non-submitters of testing were observed in Cumulative GPAs and graduation rates, despite significant differences in SAT/ACT scores."
That is, SAT/ACT scores don't seem to affect metrics like Cumulative GPAs and graduation rates. (As I recall from elsewhere, they do correlate with first year grades, but that's a different and less important metric.)
Further: "Optional testing policies also help build broader access to higher education: non-submitters are more likely to be first-generation-to‐college students, minorities, Pell Grant recipients, women and students with Learning Differences."
That is, using SAT/ACT scores in the selection process appears to have measurable effect on the student population; reducing what is sometimes referred to as "diversity."
As to your correct observation, "it does not follow that predicts(A) > predicts(A ∪ B)", one of the issues is that college success is also correlated with other factors, including parental wealth. And success on the SAT/ACT is also correlated with parental wealth, who can afford special training on how to pass those tests.
We know this by looking at the early history of college boards, which emphasized the topics taught at prep schools (like Latin grammar) than public school, because college admissions preferred rich white male Protestants, who were likely to go to prep school.
To be clear, the SAT has done a lot of work to de-bias their tests, and I don't know enough about to topic to say anything what factors are actually involved.
But I don't need to, since the tests don't seem to be that effective in predicting college success.
Thanks for the detailed and nuanced response.
Which, if I can attempt to boil it down to one sentence, would seem to be: "Tests don't seem to be a good predictor of college success, even when taking GPA into account. But they do seem to promote diversity."
And to which I would like to add, solely from anecdotal observation[1]:
"They also provide a second chance for a significant number of people. Even with a bad year, or even two, in high school -- this doesn't necessarily mean you are doomed to a lifetime of minimum wage servitude. If you have the intrinsic cognitive skills, you can easily do moderately well on the SAT, even without prepping."
I would like to consider diversity and the possibility of a second chance to be not merely incidental, but essential benefits to be striven for in the admissions process. Instead of simply stack-ranking based on the most easily demonstrable predictors of success.
[1] Including observations of some of the smartest and most creative and inspiring people I have ever met -- but again, that's anecdotal.
Which, if I can attempt to boil it down to one sentence, would seem to be: "Tests don't seem to be a good predictor of college success, even when taking GPA into account. But they do seem to promote diversity."
And to which I would like to add, solely from anecdotal observation[1]:
"They also provide a second chance for a significant number of people. Even with a bad year, or even two, in high school -- this doesn't necessarily mean you are doomed to a lifetime of minimum wage servitude. If you have the intrinsic cognitive skills, you can easily do moderately well on the SAT, even without prepping."
I would like to consider diversity and the possibility of a second chance to be not merely incidental, but essential benefits to be striven for in the admissions process. Instead of simply stack-ranking based on the most easily demonstrable predictors of success.
[1] Including observations of some of the smartest and most creative and inspiring people I have ever met -- but again, that's anecdotal.
Umm, the other way around. "Tests don't seem to be a good predictor of college success, even when taking GPA into account. But they do seem to reduce diversity."
(You wrote "promote" instead of "reduce".)
What is the origin of your quoted paragraph ending 'If you have the intrinsic cognitive skills, you can easily do moderately well on the SAT, even without prepping.'?
I don't know how the source quantifies "a significant number of people" or "intrinsic cognitive skills". If "intrinsic cognitive skills" means "does well on the SAT or other forms of standardized testing" then of course there's no need for prepping.
And the problem is the other way around. Given the emphasis on the SAT, a single bad day (or if you have the money to re-test, a couple of bad days) - if on the day of the test! - can "doom" you.
I'm also curious about the quote because a lot of people have a good life without going to college and without "minimum wage servitude". Median pay for plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters is $27.08 per hour (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers...), done by apprenticeship and/or vocational-technical training.
And don't tell me that plumbers (or Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics, or Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers, or other careers which don't require a college degree) don't require 'intrinsic cognitive skills'.
> consider diversity
As a reminder, I used the term "diversity" in quotes, because I don't like the vagueness of the term. The specific sub-populations in the paper I linked to were "first-generation-to‐college students, minorities, Pell Grant recipients, women and students with Learning Differences".
> Instead of simply stack-ranking based on the most easily demonstrable predictors of success.
I don't know what you mean. The linked-to document about UC says:
] Training admissions office staff on the “comprehensive review” process that looks at grades, extra-curriculars, the socio-economic factors in which students grow up and other non-test criteria becomes even more important, Estolano said.
That sure does not look like simple stack-ranking to me.
> the most easily demonstrable predictors of success
FWIW, two easily demonstrable predictors of success are: 1) applicants from a rich family, and 2) applicants with at least one parent who has been to college.
I think you can see that using these predictors - and if you believe college is an important influence on life-time earnings - means the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
(You wrote "promote" instead of "reduce".)
What is the origin of your quoted paragraph ending 'If you have the intrinsic cognitive skills, you can easily do moderately well on the SAT, even without prepping.'?
I don't know how the source quantifies "a significant number of people" or "intrinsic cognitive skills". If "intrinsic cognitive skills" means "does well on the SAT or other forms of standardized testing" then of course there's no need for prepping.
And the problem is the other way around. Given the emphasis on the SAT, a single bad day (or if you have the money to re-test, a couple of bad days) - if on the day of the test! - can "doom" you.
I'm also curious about the quote because a lot of people have a good life without going to college and without "minimum wage servitude". Median pay for plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters is $27.08 per hour (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers...), done by apprenticeship and/or vocational-technical training.
And don't tell me that plumbers (or Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics, or Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers, or other careers which don't require a college degree) don't require 'intrinsic cognitive skills'.
> consider diversity
As a reminder, I used the term "diversity" in quotes, because I don't like the vagueness of the term. The specific sub-populations in the paper I linked to were "first-generation-to‐college students, minorities, Pell Grant recipients, women and students with Learning Differences".
> Instead of simply stack-ranking based on the most easily demonstrable predictors of success.
I don't know what you mean. The linked-to document about UC says:
] Training admissions office staff on the “comprehensive review” process that looks at grades, extra-curriculars, the socio-economic factors in which students grow up and other non-test criteria becomes even more important, Estolano said.
That sure does not look like simple stack-ranking to me.
> the most easily demonstrable predictors of success
FWIW, two easily demonstrable predictors of success are: 1) applicants from a rich family, and 2) applicants with at least one parent who has been to college.
I think you can see that using these predictors - and if you believe college is an important influence on life-time earnings - means the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
I feel like a good middle ground would be to use the SAT or alternative as a threshold for consideration, but not for ranking. I could believe that there could be a good evidence based cut off (perhaps with other quantitative measures) to answer "does this student meet the basic requirements" much more so then "will a student who scored 50 points higher do well after 4 years of study"
According to the College Board, which administes the SAT, the basic requirements cutoff is 530 for math, and 480 for English, i.e. total SAT score of 1010 out of 1600.
The mean score for people attending UC Berkeley is 1415 out of 1600.
If the UC admissions office were to use a threshold, it would have to be low enough that they don't get more Asians than they want. That threshold might end up being as low as 1010.
The mean score for people attending UC Berkeley is 1415 out of 1600.
If the UC admissions office were to use a threshold, it would have to be low enough that they don't get more Asians than they want. That threshold might end up being as low as 1010.
Are you saying the racial demographics of students who score above 1010 are very different from that of all graduating students who intend to go on to post secondary education, and that fact would be politically unacceptable?
No, I'm not saying that, and had not considered that question. But FWIW my guess is that the two groups you list have similar demographics (racial, socioeconomic etc.).
What I was saying:
GP suggested having a threshold used for qualification, and then selecting from qualified candidates using other criteria.
If you support this proposal, there's an upper limit to the threshold you choose. If you choose too high a threshold, then the % of students who are Asian will exceed the % of Asians in the applicant pool (or general population, whatever) and you will be accused of having a racist admissions policy.
So you must choose a threshold which is low enough that you have lots of freedom to pick on opaque/subjective criteria. Then you can achieve any demographic mix you want.
But if you choose a threshold as low as 1010, then it's probably not going to be any different from UC's current system, which ignores SAT altogether.
What I was saying:
GP suggested having a threshold used for qualification, and then selecting from qualified candidates using other criteria.
If you support this proposal, there's an upper limit to the threshold you choose. If you choose too high a threshold, then the % of students who are Asian will exceed the % of Asians in the applicant pool (or general population, whatever) and you will be accused of having a racist admissions policy.
So you must choose a threshold which is low enough that you have lots of freedom to pick on opaque/subjective criteria. Then you can achieve any demographic mix you want.
But if you choose a threshold as low as 1010, then it's probably not going to be any different from UC's current system, which ignores SAT altogether.
I actually had in mind selecting at random from the pool that meet the minimum criteria.
You could also randomly select with a bias to meet any particular requirement of gender, ethnic background, poverty etc. but possibly that's not currently legal in California.
No, what he is saying is that preparing for the SAT (or any competitive exam) is like an arms race. Immigrants from asia (where it is already hyper-competitive and the population is more) will be determined and over-prepare and clear the SAT with high scores. It is like "knowing is half the battle". This will fill all the classes with asians, that is why you read about all of the ivy league's etc having a different cutoff for asians.
If determined immigrants start getting in more than your local populace, how do you make sure that admissions are balanced. That is the problem.
But yeah some "administrator" evaluating subjective criteria like courses taken, rigor etc is also not good and a pure objective test is also not good. I feel a balance needs to be struck, it is a hard problem
If determined immigrants start getting in more than your local populace, how do you make sure that admissions are balanced. That is the problem.
But yeah some "administrator" evaluating subjective criteria like courses taken, rigor etc is also not good and a pure objective test is also not good. I feel a balance needs to be struck, it is a hard problem
>how do you make sure that admissions are balanced.
I have never understood why the admission should be balanced? In my mind it should be absolute pure meritocracy. If you don't score high enough, try again until you do or accept institution with lower requirements. Meritocracy is the fairest system overall.
I have never understood why the admission should be balanced? In my mind it should be absolute pure meritocracy. If you don't score high enough, try again until you do or accept institution with lower requirements. Meritocracy is the fairest system overall.
The argument is: if the general population has x% of broad racial group A then x% students at university B must be group A.
If not, the reason must (by definition) be systemic racism, which is unfair.
Of course, this argument is not entirely without merit.
If not, the reason must (by definition) be systemic racism, which is unfair.
Of course, this argument is not entirely without merit.
This is closer to what I meant, but a few things I feel I should clarify:
- I am an immigrant, ethnically Asian (Indian), and moved to the US from Asia (China)
- The 'Asians are overrepresented' meme isn't targeted at _immigrants_, but at Asians, regardless of birthplace. When I meet Asians who went to UC, they were usually born in California.
- When people decide to implement racial quotas (or policies that allow them to effect racial quotas without calling them racial quotas), they necessarily decide not to treat each person as an individual. Each person becomes just a 'representative' of some racial group.
- I am an immigrant, ethnically Asian (Indian), and moved to the US from Asia (China)
- The 'Asians are overrepresented' meme isn't targeted at _immigrants_, but at Asians, regardless of birthplace. When I meet Asians who went to UC, they were usually born in California.
- When people decide to implement racial quotas (or policies that allow them to effect racial quotas without calling them racial quotas), they necessarily decide not to treat each person as an individual. Each person becomes just a 'representative' of some racial group.
I feel like with a 5-4 Supreme Court (6-3 if Breyer doesn’t retire) the explicit rationale of race percentages sets this up for a Supreme Court defeat.
Breyer is one of the three liberal justices. If he retires and Biden gets to choose a replacement, it would still be 6-3.
I consider Roberts a liberal for a case like this so I think the court is 5-4 now and if Breyer doesn’t retire before 2022 (when Republicans are 99% likely to take the Senate) it will be 5-3 until there’s a Republican President.
If you classify Roberts a liberal, then your math makes sense. Roberts might not be as far right as some, but there is no way he could ever be classified as a liberal court member.
Doesn't this make the admissions process less fair, more arbitrary, and more susceptible to biases?
Only if you believe that these tests don't introduce unfairness. Given the preparation economy around the SAT, the current situation seems to favour whoever can spend more for preparation courses. Also, such tests have the tendency to test your ability to take the specific test, rather than knowledge and skill. Full disclosure, I never took the SAT as I'm European. But I took other such tests as some places in Europe.
Yes unfortunately that's the point basically
There are a lot of problems with this approach and a regression in methodology.
There are inherent problems with a standardized test and any form of exam.
Yet they are the best we have so far.
Ideally, I think everyone should be allowed into the university.
I have several friends who did poorly in high school. Back then they wanted to have fun, party, and were not interested in academic achievement.
Once they got older, they decided to go back to school. They had to study hard and retake a lot of high school exams to get to the university.
One woman is a somewhat famous and well respected lawyer. One is an electrical engineer with a great job. One architect, and the last one a psychologist.
They all had the "intelligence" / endurance to do well academically they just did not follow the same schedules.
People who did not do so well in high school but have passing grades can really perk up at the university.
Of course, if you lot everyone in, most will fail. The distribution of who fails and who does not might surprise people.
However, we do not have limitless resources to allow everyone who wants to a shot in whatever field they feel like. There is not enough physical space, there are not enough professors and teachers, nor labs etc
Basing entry on standardized merit is in my opinion, the best we have so far.
I wonder if a future were Batchlor degrees are possible to take online if the system could scale to allow everyone a shot.
Ideally, I think everyone should be allowed into the university.
I have several friends who did poorly in high school. Back then they wanted to have fun, party, and were not interested in academic achievement.
Once they got older, they decided to go back to school. They had to study hard and retake a lot of high school exams to get to the university.
One woman is a somewhat famous and well respected lawyer. One is an electrical engineer with a great job. One architect, and the last one a psychologist.
They all had the "intelligence" / endurance to do well academically they just did not follow the same schedules.
People who did not do so well in high school but have passing grades can really perk up at the university.
Of course, if you lot everyone in, most will fail. The distribution of who fails and who does not might surprise people.
However, we do not have limitless resources to allow everyone who wants to a shot in whatever field they feel like. There is not enough physical space, there are not enough professors and teachers, nor labs etc
Basing entry on standardized merit is in my opinion, the best we have so far.
I wonder if a future were Batchlor degrees are possible to take online if the system could scale to allow everyone a shot.
Well I agree that trying to force everyone to a fixed schedule in time is not correct. If you divide your life into 20 or even ten year chunks, those are your batche sizes for endeavor. You are not the fixed product of one batch of applicants at one arbitrary point in your life.
What things are scarce? Human resources to teach, capital to start businesses, bandwidth, computing power, physical security and time are some things I can think of that are scarce to varying degrees.
I don't mind if I got shut out of the ivy league Lottery at 18 ad long as I can get what I need to succeed at 36 when I finally get my act together.
At 36 as a male I might still have 40 or 50 years ahead of me to work on one or more career projects.
To some extent we need to stop worrying so much about who gets the spoils of any given lottery and just try to make it possible for people to get more bites at the apple.
The biggest problem isn't weeding out false positives and keep them from sullying Caltech or Stripe. Within reason this is a non problem.
The real problem are the people with aptitude who never get educated and don't get time and physical security in enough amounts to train themselves up to be good candidates to win capital to start ventures that will help advance society.
Tldr False negatives worse than false positives to all you evil gatekeepers
What things are scarce? Human resources to teach, capital to start businesses, bandwidth, computing power, physical security and time are some things I can think of that are scarce to varying degrees.
I don't mind if I got shut out of the ivy league Lottery at 18 ad long as I can get what I need to succeed at 36 when I finally get my act together.
At 36 as a male I might still have 40 or 50 years ahead of me to work on one or more career projects.
To some extent we need to stop worrying so much about who gets the spoils of any given lottery and just try to make it possible for people to get more bites at the apple.
The biggest problem isn't weeding out false positives and keep them from sullying Caltech or Stripe. Within reason this is a non problem.
The real problem are the people with aptitude who never get educated and don't get time and physical security in enough amounts to train themselves up to be good candidates to win capital to start ventures that will help advance society.
Tldr False negatives worse than false positives to all you evil gatekeepers
Totally unrelated: Diversity statements required for one-fifth of academic jobs: https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-req...
Are there any reasons why a private or public university wouldn’t want to maximize the number of tuition paying students?
I’m just wondering because why not just admit as many people as you could for various price tiers of: in-person, hybrid, and online education. So in that sense, as long as money wants to come in, why reject anyone other than to fake exclusivity?
I’m just wondering because why not just admit as many people as you could for various price tiers of: in-person, hybrid, and online education. So in that sense, as long as money wants to come in, why reject anyone other than to fake exclusivity?
Because student tuition does not cover anywhere near the full cost of running a school.
[deleted]
I'd like to see the SAT scores of the people deciding these things. Something tells me they aren't that great at it and wants it gone, especially the math part.
Historically the SAT was designed as an anti-Semitic discrimination measure; the racist belief that underlay it was that Jewish people were doing well on college admission criteria because they worked too hard, so designing a test that it was impossible to study for --- a test that measured academic aptitude rather than achievement --- would restore the racist world order in which non-Jewish white people constituted virtually the entire student body. Much to the racists' surprise, Jewish people continued to excel on the SAT, and it turned out to be easy to study for.
Today, alongside Jewish people, US universities want to discriminate against Asian-Americans, who have the same high test scores, high academic achievements including grades, and stereotypes of working too hard; often they carry out this discrimination by requiring higher test scores from Asian-Americans than from white people https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07..., but this practice is illegal in California and under attack elsewhere. Consequently Asian-Americans constituted 40% of in-state UC freshmen in 02019, double their share of the population https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-01/affirmat... and this explains why UC wants to drop objective admission requirements like SAT scores in order to admit a more balanced (read "white") student body, provoking strong opposition from Asian-American groups: https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/pr_20200519/
Unsurprisingly standardized testing increases representation of low-income students https://50.cresst.org/2020/05/20/cresst-recommendation-for-n... because, within a context of inequality, the only alternative to meritocracy is inherited privilege.
This is closely related to why US tech companies, who hire you based on whether you can program in an interview, are dramatically more diverse than, for example, US tech journalism companies, who apparently hire you based on whether you're white: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29277661
Today, alongside Jewish people, US universities want to discriminate against Asian-Americans, who have the same high test scores, high academic achievements including grades, and stereotypes of working too hard; often they carry out this discrimination by requiring higher test scores from Asian-Americans than from white people https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07..., but this practice is illegal in California and under attack elsewhere. Consequently Asian-Americans constituted 40% of in-state UC freshmen in 02019, double their share of the population https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-01/affirmat... and this explains why UC wants to drop objective admission requirements like SAT scores in order to admit a more balanced (read "white") student body, provoking strong opposition from Asian-American groups: https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/pr_20200519/
Unsurprisingly standardized testing increases representation of low-income students https://50.cresst.org/2020/05/20/cresst-recommendation-for-n... because, within a context of inequality, the only alternative to meritocracy is inherited privilege.
This is closely related to why US tech companies, who hire you based on whether you can program in an interview, are dramatically more diverse than, for example, US tech journalism companies, who apparently hire you based on whether you're white: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29277661
Fascinating. I hope they are running a controlled study where at least some non trivial, say 10%, of the kids are randomly selected on the basis of just applying. That you can track the outcomes and see if your selection criteria is better than random.
We know you can take "underachieving" students and put them in high achieving programs (such as law school) and that the students will rise to the occasion and do well.
We know you can take "underachieving" students and put them in high achieving programs (such as law school) and that the students will rise to the occasion and do well.
I say no grades, no tests, no degrees, free schooling, and government subsidizes the first month of every new hires salary and the first month of every layoff.
Who cares what happens before you hire someone. The only thing that matters is the results and that you can quickly fire and replace someone that doesn't fit without you or them suffering.
Motivated people will rise to their abilities either way.
Who cares what happens before you hire someone. The only thing that matters is the results and that you can quickly fire and replace someone that doesn't fit without you or them suffering.
Motivated people will rise to their abilities either way.
This will take care of those pesky yardsticks that provide evidence of admissions scandals. They can justify admitting anyone.
Does this mean we are past peak-leetcode too?
No, firms will need to do much more leetcode as the signaling value of a degree decreases.
Good luck to those firms that have the fastest b-tree optimizations physically possible, and no customers.
Do product managers become worthless at companies where coders understand algorithms? Or what is your point?
Having an abundance of talented developer labor so even money losing companies can afford to buy it is not a problem that exists in the world.
What usally happens now is that developers leave if there are no customers, but yes, if we ever reach that state where even the companies with the worst products can hire the best developers, then wages will have fallen quite a bit.
What usally happens now is that developers leave if there are no customers, but yes, if we ever reach that state where even the companies with the worst products can hire the best developers, then wages will have fallen quite a bit.
Wonder what's going to happen when they realize this just defers testing to exams in courses.
They realize it already. The squishier the subject, the faster quantitative testing will disappear.
[deleted]
In my country, around the same time top public universities adopted affirmative-action quotas, they also stablished a "pre-calculus" summer course, to get everyone up to speed in all high-school math before starting their first semester (not specific for affirmative action students, plenty of non-AA students also had some catching up to do). From what I've heard it worked very well as an equalizer, with AA students who entered with lower test scores, ending up with final scores mixed with every one else.
Aren’t standardized tests a poor indicator of thinking and capability? Don’t they favor those who can memorize over abstract thinking?
> Don’t they favor those who can memorize over abstract thinking?
No. But if your vocabulary is limited, you'll do poorly on the verbals.
I never did any prep for the SATs, and nobody I knew did. Of course, this was back in the 70s.
No. But if your vocabulary is limited, you'll do poorly on the verbals.
I never did any prep for the SATs, and nobody I knew did. Of course, this was back in the 70s.
These false flag diversity initiatives are there to entrench the privileged white elite who are threatened by the children of often 1st generation immigrants.
From the article:
UC admissions officers have said they were able to thoroughly evaluate the flood of applications without test scores, using 13 other factors in the system’s review process, such as a student’s high school grade-point average, the rigor of courses taken, special talents, essays and extracurricular activities.
-
Special talents and extracurricular activities are great filters for the privileged. Nothing like the academic promise of fencing and rowing. The Winkelvoss twins from Greenwich Connecticut attended Harvard through the white elite loophole of rowing.
-
This is why there is an allergy to making it based on class and being poor. I doubt any poor blacks or Hispanics will benefit from this.
-
Interesting book on this matter:
Reflections Of An Affirmative Action Baby Paperback – August 24, 1992
https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Affirmative-Action-Stephe...
From the article:
UC admissions officers have said they were able to thoroughly evaluate the flood of applications without test scores, using 13 other factors in the system’s review process, such as a student’s high school grade-point average, the rigor of courses taken, special talents, essays and extracurricular activities.
-
Special talents and extracurricular activities are great filters for the privileged. Nothing like the academic promise of fencing and rowing. The Winkelvoss twins from Greenwich Connecticut attended Harvard through the white elite loophole of rowing.
-
This is why there is an allergy to making it based on class and being poor. I doubt any poor blacks or Hispanics will benefit from this.
-
Interesting book on this matter:
Reflections Of An Affirmative Action Baby Paperback – August 24, 1992
https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Affirmative-Action-Stephe...
Let’s separate sports from academics. Sports organizations can exist outside the school. I’m suggesting this for all ages. Players can compete in divisions based on skill without school grouping as a factor. A lot of kids don’t play sports because they’re not competitive enough at their school. With these extra-academic divisions there’s more players for each pool of skill level. Another benefit is connecting people across different socioeconomic backgrounds.
I always thought it was weird that colleges have sports teams, then again in Japan companies often have sports teams.
American corps also have sports teams, they just typically run under a shell of a rich guy.
The only way to be color-blind is standardized tests.
It's possible that standardized tests are biased. Then fix them!
I didn't have rich parents. So I had never gone abroad.
A rich parent can send their kids on "charity missions" to poor countries to rack up those "extra curricular points".
It's possible that standardized tests are biased. Then fix them!
I didn't have rich parents. So I had never gone abroad.
A rich parent can send their kids on "charity missions" to poor countries to rack up those "extra curricular points".
It's not just possible the ubiquitous SAT was literally created by a white supremacist, Carl Brigham [0]. They are having a moment right now and trying to distance themselves from the racist part of their foundation.
> It's possible that standardized tests are biased. Then fix them!
We know they are biased but everytime the solution it's brought the solution is to replace them with another biased test.
[0] https://www.teenvogue.com/story/the-history-of-the-sat-is-mi...
> It's possible that standardized tests are biased. Then fix them!
We know they are biased but everytime the solution it's brought the solution is to replace them with another biased test.
[0] https://www.teenvogue.com/story/the-history-of-the-sat-is-mi...
There are plenty of foreign tests around the world where not a single white person was involved in devising them. And they are so so much harder, especially in mathematics, than the SAT.
Math tests are universally acknowledged to be neutral, even if hard. Most countries have standardized tests that have a spectrum of subjects covered. If you apply to say engineering only your Math and Science scores matter. If you apply to Literature only your language scores matter.
Maybe a good idea is to unbundle the English from the Math in the SAT and have two separate tests.
Language is definitely "subjective" and open to interpretation compared to Math. Maybe the bias you are referring to is in the English part.
-
I know people who still contribute to Planned Parenthood even though they know it's founder Margaret Singer was a racist and eugenist.
Math tests are universally acknowledged to be neutral, even if hard. Most countries have standardized tests that have a spectrum of subjects covered. If you apply to say engineering only your Math and Science scores matter. If you apply to Literature only your language scores matter.
Maybe a good idea is to unbundle the English from the Math in the SAT and have two separate tests.
Language is definitely "subjective" and open to interpretation compared to Math. Maybe the bias you are referring to is in the English part.
-
I know people who still contribute to Planned Parenthood even though they know it's founder Margaret Singer was a racist and eugenist.
In Finland there is single big standardized test. (Actually there is also lower level tests, but those really don't matter). Different subjects have different weights in different programs. Still funnily enough math have two levels. But as the higher level has by far the largest number of class-hours it ends up giving lot of points in any subject.
>It's not just possible the ubiquitous SAT was literally created by a white supremacist, Carl Brigham
Literally the genetic fallacy.
Literally the genetic fallacy.
The white savior NGO charity complex. Poverty tourism is the hottest trend for white saviors and then the expectant applause.
It's not even a "white" thing, or a "savior" thing.
Indian here. I have rich relatives who send their kids on very very expensive "charity missions" to Africa (Where the kids work temporarily in some school or such. Something to add to their CV.). These people are not white, and they're not trying to be saviors. They're trying to get their kids into the Ivy League. Their friends-group literally has parties where they share all the ways they can add extra-curriculars and such to their kids admissions applications.
Indian here. I have rich relatives who send their kids on very very expensive "charity missions" to Africa (Where the kids work temporarily in some school or such. Something to add to their CV.). These people are not white, and they're not trying to be saviors. They're trying to get their kids into the Ivy League. Their friends-group literally has parties where they share all the ways they can add extra-curriculars and such to their kids admissions applications.
Desiring a color-blind society is now considered racist on campus. You have to see identity first and at all times in everything, and to treat people differently based on their identities.
tomatofarmer(5)
I was on the UC Berkeley campus on Tuesday. So many more black and latino students than when I was on campus. It was nice.
I had many black friends in high school and none when I went to Berkeley in 2005-2010. I can say the SAT, ACT, etc. are biased against anyone who doesn't have the money to get the prep for them.
I had many black friends in high school and none when I went to Berkeley in 2005-2010. I can say the SAT, ACT, etc. are biased against anyone who doesn't have the money to get the prep for them.
I don’t know about the ACT, but the SAT in that time period was trivial to study for. I had one Barrons book, and the rest was accomplished by being a student in a public school. There were no surprises come test day.
I genuinely don’t understand when people say the SAT is so biased, because it seemed quite fair to me compared to alternative metrics. Unless asking someone to spend a lot of time studying is too much to ask.
I genuinely don’t understand when people say the SAT is so biased, because it seemed quite fair to me compared to alternative metrics. Unless asking someone to spend a lot of time studying is too much to ask.
The SAT isn't hard to study for, but the question is, if your dad is in jail (which many of my black friend's dads were), you are feeling uncertain about the world because of the color of your skin, would you put in the effort? I think people look at tests like the one and all, but many kids have other stuff to work out.
I have no problem if a kid in that situation decides to not put in the effort. I also have no problem if decisions to put in more effort yield better outcomes.
what part of this is fixed by getting rid of the SATs, exactly? do all the other problems that are making it hard to get on top of school suddenly disappear? do they magically disappear in college? how is it even beneficial to remove one possible avenue for demonstrating aptitude beyond the ability to succeed in a classroom environment, which is profoundly tilted toward rich families who can help kids with homework, bitch at teachers about bad grades, etc.?
Strength leads to strength. If you can get to a place of prestige and that place continues to have high standards, then the people who are bound for the streets or no purpose have a means to a higher goal. Maybe I believe that if you give people a little bit of chance, they end up better?
ah, so you just find a way to continue to have high standards while continuously lowering the standard for admission
but that's not even the point... the post was about how students who don't care about school will somehow be better served by getting into a good school anyway. sure, some people will have an "oh shit i cant screw this up" moment, but... many will just fail. right? and in the meantime, the student who didn't get the chance to pursue their dreams... does what? it is unfortunately a pretty zero sum game. i wish it weren't. i think it'd be great for universities to figure out how to scale up much bigger than they are currently for exactly this reason.
but that's not even the point... the post was about how students who don't care about school will somehow be better served by getting into a good school anyway. sure, some people will have an "oh shit i cant screw this up" moment, but... many will just fail. right? and in the meantime, the student who didn't get the chance to pursue their dreams... does what? it is unfortunately a pretty zero sum game. i wish it weren't. i think it'd be great for universities to figure out how to scale up much bigger than they are currently for exactly this reason.
I don't think you have to worry here. The people who take the SAT are a minority. We need to stop thinking everyone takes the SAT. It is not valid. This policy benefits the people who take the SAT, which is likely a minority of students.
Hardly a minority of students. The year before the pandemic, 77% of college applicants took the SAT or ACT.
That was 2019-20, after colleges had starting going whatever you want to call not requiring standardized tests.
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2021/09/13...
That was 2019-20, after colleges had starting going whatever you want to call not requiring standardized tests.
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2021/09/13...
If you aren't willing to put in the effort for a multiple choice (easy) exam, you are failing any STEM college degree (the only ones that give you a chance at making it out of the poorhouse), straight up. Compared to the SAT intro calculus at any top university is magnitudes harder.
If you admit the kids you're talking about under affirmative action they'd just be weeded out in intro courses and get relegated to some social sciences degree with negative return on tuition. That is objectively worse than rejecting them.
If you admit the kids you're talking about under affirmative action they'd just be weeded out in intro courses and get relegated to some social sciences degree with negative return on tuition. That is objectively worse than rejecting them.
I have a History degree, and I'm doing fine. I'm sure most of the PMs who design the tech engineers build will also agree.
You may be doing fine, but objective measures of the average salary of humanities majors at schools like UCB say otherwise.
Most of the PMs I know have either business or STEM degrees.
Most of the PMs I know have either business or STEM degrees.
I guess we aren't talking about the same humanities majors. Most of my friends from Berkeley who are history or humanities majors are lawyers, academics, or doctors (yes, many of the humanities became doctors). They don't really seem to care about the money even though we as engineers seem they should care. Or they had to go through additional layer of study which depresses their true value.
So they took the easy road to get into medical or law school.
What about the humanities majors that went straight into the workplace?
What about the humanities majors that went straight into the workplace?
Ok, lets take your example. why should the kid in your example get a step over a kid with a stable family. Even kids in stable families have dreams. Even stable families got problems.
I think they both need to meet in the middle. I came from a low-income family and had plenty of wealthy friends.
Kids with stable families have money. Take away the money, and the thing that gave them the advantage goes away. For the poor kids, the money is no longer a blocker.
Kids with stable families have money. Take away the money, and the thing that gave them the advantage goes away. For the poor kids, the money is no longer a blocker.
You know what meets in the middle? Standardized tests.
where are all these people spending hours getting "prepped" for the SAT, exactly? not at my high school... and where are all these test prep gods that are somehow getting enormous scores for "undeserving" students? does anyone actually know anyone who "prepped" their way to more than, what, 100-200 points of improvement max? and honestly that's pretty generous. surely less than the advantage from taking the test multiple times (which is a huge advantage for people with money, surely). unless we are talking very low score -> moderate score improvement... but i don't think that's gonna get anyone into Berkeley... setting hard admissions criteria on scores was already WAYY out of fashion by the time i went to college... i can't imagine it is somehow more in vogue these days.
i have a hard time understanding how affirmative action + SAT scores is somehow worse than affirmative action w/o SAT scores. the former seems like a clear win?
i have a hard time understanding how affirmative action + SAT scores is somehow worse than affirmative action w/o SAT scores. the former seems like a clear win?
The whole anti-standard-testing movement is pushed by ideology leftists and corrupted bureaucrats, but the supposed experts just quietly watch the world burn. Lol.
Update: I found experts in the UCLA were tasked to make the suggestion. They suggested a new admission assessment. So the bureaucrats just totally disregarded their recommendation . See https://50.cresst.org/2020/05/20/cresst-recommendation-for-n...
Also quote: The Task Force in its review found—to some surprise—that tests such as the SAT provide a useful tool to support admissions leading to a more diverse pool of admitted students than UC otherwise would have had. The Task Force found that approximately 25% of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minor students earned their guaranteed admission into UC because of test scores. The Task Force’s report showed that test scores are better predictors of success for underrepresented minority students, first-generation students, and those whose families are low- income. Using recent UC-specific data, the Task Force found that test scores remain predictive of success even after student demographics are taken into account. That is especially true when compared to high school grades, whose predictive power has gone down due, in part, to grade inflation. These findings tell us that there is value in the evidence that educational assessments provide, but they can be improved—and so can the UC admissions process as a result. In a vote of confidence in its veracity, the Task Force report was unanimously endorsed by faculty members of the UC’s Academic Senate, 51–0.