Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

DP. No, they are not basic tests of intellectual ability. You do not understand these tests and are shaping a narrative that suits you. By what criteria do yoi assert that one race is "smarter?" Sure, there were a lot if Asian kids in our magnet. The vast majority of them also had an incredible amount of outside enrichment in addition to test specific prep for every magnet entrance exam (es, ms, hs). The tests only correlate to the ability to do well on the test. Intelligence may be one potential factor, but preparedness is far more influential on standardized test performance.

Give me a break. They are asking you to read paragraphs and make correct inferences. They are asking you to solve math problems. This is how you measure intelligence. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows if your life depended on picking which kid is "smarter" you would pick the kid with 1500 over 1180 every single time. I know it's uncomfortable that Asians do really well and it violates our contemporary sense that everyone is exactly equal and if there is any slight difference it can only be because of systemic racism. But everyone knows even if they don't say it aloud.

You really don't get it. But, that doesn't stop you from posting a LOT.

I totally get it. You know why I get it? Because I’m smart. You know how you know I’m smart? I got 1500 on my SATs before it was recentered (and all I had was my sister’s old Barron’s study guide and I took it once). And then I attended HYP with a bunch of other people who were like me and they are the smartest people I ever met. And this includes many black guys who actually got very high SAT scores as well and went on to do great things

If you are that brilliant what are doing wasting your super brain cells on DCUM of all places. I don't buy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

DP. No, they are not basic tests of intellectual ability. You do not understand these tests and are shaping a narrative that suits you. By what criteria do yoi assert that one race is "smarter?" Sure, there were a lot if Asian kids in our magnet. The vast majority of them also had an incredible amount of outside enrichment in addition to test specific prep for every magnet entrance exam (es, ms, hs). The tests only correlate to the ability to do well on the test. Intelligence may be one potential factor, but preparedness is far more influential on standardized test performance.

Give me a break. They are asking you to read paragraphs and make correct inferences. They are asking you to solve math problems. This is how you measure intelligence. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows if your life depended on picking which kid is "smarter" you would pick the kid with 1500 over 1180 every single time. I know it's uncomfortable that Asians do really well and it violates our contemporary sense that everyone is exactly equal and if there is any slight difference it can only be because of systemic racism. But everyone knows even if they don't say it aloud.

You really don't get it. But, that doesn't stop you from posting a LOT.

I totally get it. You know why I get it? Because I’m smart. You know how you know I’m smart? I got 1500 on my SATs before it was recentered (and all I had was my sister’s old Barron’s study guide and I took it once). And then I attended HYP with a bunch of other people who were like me and they are the smartest people I ever met. And this includes many black guys who actually got very high SAT scores as well and went on to do great things

If you are that brilliant what are doing wasting your super brain cells on DCUM of all places. I don't buy it.

I don’t know, it’s addictive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

DP. No, they are not basic tests of intellectual ability. You do not understand these tests and are shaping a narrative that suits you. By what criteria do yoi assert that one race is "smarter?" Sure, there were a lot if Asian kids in our magnet. The vast majority of them also had an incredible amount of outside enrichment in addition to test specific prep for every magnet entrance exam (es, ms, hs). The tests only correlate to the ability to do well on the test. Intelligence may be one potential factor, but preparedness is far more influential on standardized test performance.

Give me a break. They are asking you to read paragraphs and make correct inferences. They are asking you to solve math problems. This is how you measure intelligence. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows if your life depended on picking which kid is "smarter" you would pick the kid with 1500 over 1180 every single time. I know it's uncomfortable that Asians do really well and it violates our contemporary sense that everyone is exactly equal and if there is any slight difference it can only be because of systemic racism. But everyone knows even if they don't say it aloud.

You really don't get it. But, that doesn't stop you from posting a LOT.

I totally get it. You know why I get it? Because I’m smart. You know how you know I’m smart? I got 1500 on my SATs before it was recentered (and all I had was my sister’s old Barron’s study guide and I took it once). And then I attended HYP with a bunch of other people who were like me and they are the smartest people I ever met. And this includes many black guys who actually got very high SAT scores as well and went on to do great things

If you are that brilliant what are doing wasting your super brain cells on DCUM of all places. I don't buy it.

I don’t know, it’s addictive

Addicts are not what these schools are seeking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

DP. No, they are not basic tests of intellectual ability. You do not understand these tests and are shaping a narrative that suits you. By what criteria do yoi assert that one race is "smarter?" Sure, there were a lot if Asian kids in our magnet. The vast majority of them also had an incredible amount of outside enrichment in addition to test specific prep for every magnet entrance exam (es, ms, hs). The tests only correlate to the ability to do well on the test. Intelligence may be one potential factor, but preparedness is far more influential on standardized test performance.

Give me a break. They are asking you to read paragraphs and make correct inferences. They are asking you to solve math problems. This is how you measure intelligence. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows if your life depended on picking which kid is "smarter" you would pick the kid with 1500 over 1180 every single time. I know it's uncomfortable that Asians do really well and it violates our contemporary sense that everyone is exactly equal and if there is any slight difference it can only be because of systemic racism. But everyone knows even if they don't say it aloud.

You really don't get it. But, that doesn't stop you from posting a LOT.

I totally get it. You know why I get it? Because I’m smart. You know how you know I’m smart? I got 1500 on my SATs before it was recentered (and all I had was my sister’s old Barron’s study guide and I took it once). And then I attended HYP with a bunch of other people who were like me and they are the smartest people I ever met. And this includes many black guys who actually got very high SAT scores as well and went on to do great things

If you are that brilliant what are doing wasting your super brain cells on DCUM of all places. I don't buy it.

I don’t know, it’s addictive

These places let iin students with answers not with I dont knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

DP. No, they are not basic tests of intellectual ability. You do not understand these tests and are shaping a narrative that suits you. By what criteria do yoi assert that one race is "smarter?" Sure, there were a lot if Asian kids in our magnet. The vast majority of them also had an incredible amount of outside enrichment in addition to test specific prep for every magnet entrance exam (es, ms, hs). The tests only correlate to the ability to do well on the test. Intelligence may be one potential factor, but preparedness is far more influential on standardized test performance.

Give me a break. They are asking you to read paragraphs and make correct inferences. They are asking you to solve math problems. This is how you measure intelligence. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows if your life depended on picking which kid is "smarter" you would pick the kid with 1500 over 1180 every single time. I know it's uncomfortable that Asians do really well and it violates our contemporary sense that everyone is exactly equal and if there is any slight difference it can only be because of systemic racism. But everyone knows even if they don't say it aloud.

You really don't get it. But, that doesn't stop you from posting a LOT.

I totally get it. You know why I get it? Because I’m smart. You know how you know I’m smart? I got 1500 on my SATs before it was recentered (and all I had was my sister’s old Barron’s study guide and I took it once). And then I attended HYP with a bunch of other people who were like me and they are the smartest people I ever met. And this includes many black guys who actually got very high SAT scores as well and went on to do great things

If you are that brilliant what are doing wasting your super brain cells on DCUM of all places. I don't buy it.

I don’t know, it’s addictive

Addicts are not what these schools are seeking.

Lol well I saw my fair share

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

has nothing to do with race science. I will stipulate that there are no variations in intelligence across races. I am simply arguing that SATs are a reliable measure of intellectual ability (not perfect and yes prep can improve one's score). If there are differences from a racial perspective on outcomes, some of this could be related to prep but it is also related to the intellectual development of 16 year old kids across races. Culture, financial resources, family structure-- these all play into how "smart" a kid is by the time he or she is 16. The SAT catches how "smart" a kid is in ways that grades (which vary wildly by school, teacher etc) do not. It is a good tool. Not perfect but good. yes, a kid from a disadvantaged background should be given some leeway for weak SATs to adjust for the prep aspect of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

DP. No, they are not basic tests of intellectual ability. You do not understand these tests and are shaping a narrative that suits you. By what criteria do yoi assert that one race is "smarter?" Sure, there were a lot if Asian kids in our magnet. The vast majority of them also had an incredible amount of outside enrichment in addition to test specific prep for every magnet entrance exam (es, ms, hs). The tests only correlate to the ability to do well on the test. Intelligence may be one potential factor, but preparedness is far more influential on standardized test performance.

Give me a break. They are asking you to read paragraphs and make correct inferences. They are asking you to solve math problems. This is how you measure intelligence. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows if your life depended on picking which kid is "smarter" you would pick the kid with 1500 over 1180 every single time. I know it's uncomfortable that Asians do really well and it violates our contemporary sense that everyone is exactly equal and if there is any slight difference it can only be because of systemic racism. But everyone knows even if they don't say it aloud.

You really don't get it. But, that doesn't stop you from posting a LOT.

I totally get it. You know why I get it? Because I’m smart. You know how you know I’m smart? I got 1500 on my SATs before it was recentered (and all I had was my sister’s old Barron’s study guide and I took it once). And then I attended HYP with a bunch of other people who were like me and they are the smartest people I ever met. And this includes many black guys who actually got very high SAT scores as well and went on to do great things

If you are that brilliant what are doing wasting your super brain cells on DCUM of all places. I don't buy it.

I don’t know, it’s addictive

Addicts are not what these schools are seeking.

Lol well I saw my fair share

Dcum addicts. Sounds like these places are not getting such amazing brainiacs afterall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

has nothing to do with race science. I will stipulate that there are no variations in intelligence across races. I am simply arguing that SATs are a reliable measure of intellectual ability (not perfect and yes prep can improve one's score). If there are differences from a racial perspective on outcomes, some of this could be related to prep but it is also related to the intellectual development of 16 year old kids across races. Culture, financial resources, family structure-- these all play into how "smart" a kid is by the time he or she is 16. The SAT catches how "smart" a kid is in ways that grades (which vary wildly by school, teacher etc) do not. It is a good tool. Not perfect but good. yes, a kid from a disadvantaged background should be given some leeway for weak SATs to adjust for the prep aspect of it.

Not in a way that provides meaningful data for a school. A 1500 doesn’t mean you are smarter than a 1450 or dumber than a 1550. Also, schools dont know anything about amount of prep or the number of times it was taken. Your faith in the powers of the SAT are misplaced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all suggests that top 30 SLACS are really on their way to having really strong student profiles. All the kids who would otherwise attend an Ivy like large research university or a state flagship but got rejected despite high test scores will have more interest in LACs so they can get a high quality education. Otherwise they are bound for mediocre universities or second tier state schools.

Most high stat kids I know, including my own, don’t want a small remote school. They prefer a large research institution with good sports.

Right but they will end up at Michigan state instead of Michigan. Or BU instead of Wash U.

And the problem with that is??????

[Anonymous]

I think PP has been out of the SAT/ACT world for a bit. My kid is in a test prep class now. The first thing the instructor said is the SAT & ACT are not intelligence tests. They teach tips and tricks to select the best answer, and guarantee a 1500 if we spend the time and money. They also recommend kids take the test multiple times to super score, which almost everyone does these days. Those score aren't intelligence or genetics, just privilege & resources. Schools are well aware that a kid within a certain test band and GPA are able to do the work and don't need to be a "genius."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action

yup, when Jared kushner or Donald Trump need to buy their way into a school, it really degrades the overall quality of the student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like if a kid went into a Time Machine and went back five years, it seems with the exact same profile he or she would likely get into a more selective college. I understand kids are applying to more schools but that also means yield has to decline. But it seems there is a much larger pool of highly qualified applicants to top colleges or at least it is incrementally more difficult for a high stat kid to get accepted into his or her preferred school. Why is this?

The facts: it isn’t.

Virtually the same number of kids for the virtually same number of slots

If you want to claim it’s harder show evidence of the contrary of the above.

The bolded is false. Many hot or selective schools have seen the number of applications jump by anywhere from 20% to 40% over the last 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

Yes hard work and preparation are evil

Unless we’re talking about D1 Football or Basketball.