Harvard Psychologist argues for admissions reform

[Anonymous]

There's more and more pressure to increase the transparency of admissions at these schools. Any thoughts?

Many studies have shown that the tests, contrary to myth, are not racially biased; they are not just an indicator of socioeconomic status; they are predictive all the way up the scale; they predict not just school performance but also life success; and they are not significantly goosed upward by test prep courses.

Moreover, the alternatives are worse. High school grades measure motivation as well as aptitude, but their value has been sinking as grades have been inflating. Personal statements and teacher recommendations are burnished by admissions-savvy experts at expensive private and suburban schools. Extracurriculars like fencing, rowing, traveling to Italy, or having your mom drive you to a church to sort clothes for the homeless, are luxuries of the rich.

Worst of all, “holistic admissions” can be a fig leaf that conceals racial discrimination: In the past against Jewish and Black applicants, and more recently against Asian applicants, who just happened to get lower ratings in squishy judgments of personality.

[Anonymous]

Full article here: https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedom-at-harvard/article/2024/1/29/pinker-harvard-legacy-admissions/

[Anonymous]

Well there's an easy issue with this approach. There's too many 1600s, and if people know they can just get a 1600 and get into Harvard, many people will just retest over and over till they get the score they want.

[Anonymous]

OMG they can accept whomever they wish. When will people realize that? Start your own uni if you want to determine who gets to attend.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think that first paragraph is quite accurate. It seems to overstate much of the predictive value.

Tests would be fine in my mind but you would need to go off of more than just the SAT. Maybe more subject tests. Something like A levels or AP but more standardized.

[Anonymous]

Somewhere out there, they are convinced that the only way to get 1550+ is being rich.

But car mechanics garage would allow just any 16 years old working there, without parents owning that garage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think that first paragraph is quite accurate. It seems to overstate much of the predictive value.

Tests would be fine in my mind but you would need to go off of more than just the SAT. Maybe more subject tests. Something like A levels or AP but more standardized.

+1, I'm really shocked to see the lack of nuance by a psychologist as famous as Pinker. If he's this interested in making a meritocratic system, he's a literal Harvard professor-go make the test! You have the psychological training to understand what kinds of knowledge need to be tested before a student enters Harvard. There's no way Pinker genuinely believes the SAT is the gold standard for the best students. It's also interesting seeing the obsession with meritocratic, test-based undergraduate admissions as these same professors have slowly dismantled the meritocratic nature of graduate admissions.

[Anonymous]

According to hard 80% of their applicants are qualified and would do well at the school, however they are only taking 5%… you can’t pick based on scores alone, they need to pick holistically.

[Anonymous]

The SAT does have racist origins. Creator of it was a white supremacist who touted eugenics.

Also, regarding the professor, I'll bet you a nickle HIS children have an edge to go to Harvard (as children of faculty) regardless of their test scores.

Meritocracy my a**

[Anonymous]

Here's an easy test. Follow a cohort ('25-'29) of Harvard students and ask each professor across a year long period who the most competent student in their class is. Throw out courses with a high amount of class year variability, and collect the SAT scores of each of those students. If Pinker is correct, the most competent students should consistently be high scorers 1580+, more so than the undergraduate pool, so greater than 25% of responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an easy test. Follow a cohort ('25-'29) of Harvard students and ask each professor across a year long period who the most competent student in their class is. Throw out courses with a high amount of class year variability, and collect the SAT scores of each of those students. If Pinker is correct, the most competent students should consistently be high scorers 1580+, more so than the undergraduate pool, so greater than 25% of responses.[/quote
You've proposed a more efficient and needed argument than Pinker. Seriously, the article he wrote should make us question tenure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of “holistic admissions,” I suggest using a transparent formula that is weighted toward test scores and high school grades, adjusting it by whichever other factors can be publicly justified, such as geographic and socioeconomic diversity, and allowing for human judgment in exceptional cases. (I recognize the arguments for including race, but that has been judged unconstitutional, so the issue is moot.)

Isn't it called academic index?
And sat comes with landscaping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many studies have shown that the tests, contrary to myth, are not racially biased; they are not just an indicator of socioeconomic status; they are predictive all the way up the scale; they predict not just school performance but also life success; and they are not significantly goosed upward by test prep courses.

This has been proved over and over.
There is a direct correlation between SAT test score and MCAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to hard 80% of their applicants are qualified and would do well at the school, however they are only taking 5%… you can’t pick based on scores alone, they need to pick holistically.

Honestly, schools should meet their needs (eg tuba player, soccer goalie) and then do a lottery for the rest above a certain threshold of SAT, grades, rigor. It has become so ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well there's an easy issue with this approach. There's too many 1600s, and if people know they can just get a 1600 and get into Harvard, many people will just retest over and over till they get the score they want.

This.