Harvard Psychologist argues for admissions reform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why people keep making this argument again and again? No, they can’t as long as they receive federal funding!!!

they only get federal funding for doing federal work. not for educating undergrads. harvard has no problem funding undergrad education with their 100k tuition.


but if we no longer what universities to do scientific research, we either have to stand up some other entities or give up on it.

the smallpox vaccine was developed at Harvard in the 1700s and they didnt stop. same as many other universities. they are the center of research in the US.

how they admit their undergrads being tied to this is just weird. the govt can fine them if they want

Try to make that BS argument in front of SCOTUS. Harvard tried and lost.

[Anonymous]

I get the grade inflation arguments, but I also see at DC’s top ranked high school filled with top 0.01% killing themselves here work that’s frankly an A+ at most schools. I think colleges tried to remedy this by accounting for the course rigor, but they didn’t expect students to actually start racking up AP courses to the extent that they have.

Other countries have standardized grading rubrics. I’d love for us to try that, but that requires a level of standardization that republicans would call communist.

[Anonymous]

Pinker's arguments are weird and if it were a class paper from a student, should get a low grade. The studies he cites are either assessing outliers (the first one that tracked a cohort of 13 year olds that were administered the SAT decades ago) or ones that were conducted before College Board revamped SAT and before the growth of the prep industry to its now pervasive levels. In fact the study he cites (conducted by the UC faculty senate) does conclude that SAT scores are different across various groups and therefore must be accounted for, which the UC system does.

Admittedly, factors such as legacy, donors, niche sports etc do skew the system. But tying admissions to a specific score is fraught as well (see the insane IIT-JEE system in India). There will always have to be a thumb on the scale -- the question is whose thumb and in whose favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pinker's arguments are weird and if it were a class paper from a student, should get a low grade. The studies he cites are either assessing outliers (the first one that tracked a cohort of 13 year olds that were administered the SAT decades ago) or ones that were conducted before College Board revamped SAT and before the growth of the prep industry to its now pervasive levels. In fact the study he cites (conducted by the UC faculty senate) does conclude that SAT scores are different across various groups and therefore must be accounted for, which the UC system does.

Admittedly, factors such as legacy, donors, niche sports etc do skew the system. But tying admissions to a specific score is fraught as well (see the insane IIT-JEE system in India). There will always have to be a thumb on the scale -- the question is whose thumb and in whose favor.

+1, I’m shocked a notable Harvard scholar wrote this. The undergrads on the crimson produce better work than this. No discussion of trade offs or really what we gain from this. He mocks the idea that entering classes of only top scorers is a brainless endeavor but doesn’t really say what’ll happen if year over year there aren’t enough students for the orchestra or the arts in general. Should colleges still consider major? What if his cognitive science department becomes underenrolled and they have to hire less? I’ve seen ideological conservatives produce great arguments for merit based admissions, but that’s because they clearly thought through the logistics of such a change.

[Anonymous]

When I clicked this, I thought the argument was going to be “the current system should be abandoned because it is destroying students psychologically.”

[Anonymous]

It’s funny how no one makes the argument for AP exam scores only. Things that make you go hmm? 🤨

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pinker's arguments are weird and if it were a class paper from a student, should get a low grade. The studies he cites are either assessing outliers (the first one that tracked a cohort of 13 year olds that were administered the SAT decades ago) or ones that were conducted before College Board revamped SAT and before the growth of the prep industry to its now pervasive levels. In fact the study he cites (conducted by the UC faculty senate) does conclude that SAT scores are different across various groups and therefore must be accounted for, which the UC system does.

Admittedly, factors such as legacy, donors, niche sports etc do skew the system. But tying admissions to a specific score is fraught as well (see the insane IIT-JEE system in India). There will always have to be a thumb on the scale -- the question is whose thumb and in whose favor.

+1, I’m shocked a notable Harvard scholar wrote this. The undergrads on the crimson produce better work than this. No discussion of trade offs or really what we gain from this. He mocks the idea that entering classes of only top scorers is a brainless endeavor but doesn’t really say what’ll happen if year over year there aren’t enough students for the orchestra or the arts in general. Should colleges still consider major? What if his cognitive science department becomes underenrolled and they have to hire less? I’ve seen ideological conservatives produce great arguments for merit based admissions, but that’s because they clearly thought through the logistics of such a change.

I’m not sure it is that shocking. Social reproduction is essential for elites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny how no one makes the argument for AP exam scores only. Things that make you go hmm? 🤨

This has always been my wonder from the meritocracy gurus. AP exams are a much better thing to promote- subject specificity, performance over time, and ability to show standardized mastery. It’s the perfect solution, but they’re hung up on the SAT.

DS got a 1410 sat, but a 5 on Calc Bc, English Lit, Physics C: Mechanics and E&M, and AP US History (along with other tests). He’s done great in JHUs math program, but for some reason, people think it makes more sense to judge his intellect on an algebra2 exam.

[Anonymous]

This is what happens when someone is highly educated with no life experience.

[Anonymous]

This is probably tilting at windmills but I expected more from Pinker. His whole thesis seems to be that optimizing for "objective measures" like test scores in admissions would optimize across many dimensions (such as achievements in the arts, music, humanities and sciences). Hence, Harvard should strive to become more "meritocratic", whatever that means.

But the study he cites is the famous longitudinal study of precocious 13 year olds, who were already identified as gifted! Given the social makeup of the US, it is highly likely (the study cites that 75% of the kids were white, 20% were Asian) that the participants were middle class kids, with ample opportunities to develop their talents. This is a very skewed sample, but even then, there is no mention of high achievements in music, theater, dance etc by age 38. Yes, these kids probably enriched their college environments but clearly they aren't outliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny how no one makes the argument for AP exam scores only. Things that make you go hmm? 🤨

This has always been my wonder from the meritocracy gurus. AP exams are a much better thing to promote- subject specificity, performance over time, and ability to show standardized mastery. It’s the perfect solution, but they’re hung up on the SAT.

DS got a 1410 sat, but a 5 on Calc Bc, English Lit, Physics C: Mechanics and E&M, and AP US History (along with other tests). He’s done great in JHUs math program, but for some reason, people think it makes more sense to judge his intellect on an algebra2 exam.

Not debating that AP scores cover broader knowledge but wouldn’t the problem be accessibility? Not all high schools offer AP’s, some only a few. Having AP scores as the metric would likely disqualify significant number of students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why people keep making this argument again and again? No, they can’t as long as they receive federal funding!!!

they only get federal funding for doing federal work. not for educating undergrads. harvard has no problem funding undergrad education with their 100k tuition.


but if we no longer what universities to do scientific research, we either have to stand up some other entities or give up on it.

the smallpox vaccine was developed at Harvard in the 1700s and they didnt stop. same as many other universities. they are the center of research in the US.

how they admit their undergrads being tied to this is just weird. the govt can fine them if they want

Try to make that BS argument in front of SCOTUS. Harvard tried and lost.

no, that suit had nothing to do with research funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny how no one makes the argument for AP exam scores only. Things that make you go hmm? 🤨

This has always been my wonder from the meritocracy gurus. AP exams are a much better thing to promote- subject specificity, performance over time, and ability to show standardized mastery. It’s the perfect solution, but they’re hung up on the SAT.

DS got a 1410 sat, but a 5 on Calc Bc, English Lit, Physics C: Mechanics and E&M, and AP US History (along with other tests). He’s done great in JHUs math program, but for some reason, people think it makes more sense to judge his intellect on an algebra2 exam.

Not debating that AP scores cover broader knowledge but wouldn’t the problem be accessibility? Not all high schools offer AP’s, some only a few. Having AP scores as the metric would likely disqualify significant number of students

Then start adopting. It is simply not enough to advocate for an exam that doesn’t assess well if you actually want meritocracy.

[Anonymous]

Aw man Pinker was my Professor at MIT. We loved him so much. There were stories that he actually wanted to be on faculty at MIT but popular teachers are sort of frowned on / they made an excuse that his research wasn't strong enough.

There was plenty of socioeconomic diversity at MIT. I was jealous of friends that left with no debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably tilting at windmills but I expected more from Pinker. His whole thesis seems to be that optimizing for "objective measures" like test scores in admissions would optimize across many dimensions (such as achievements in the arts, music, humanities and sciences). Hence, Harvard should strive to become more "meritocratic", whatever that means.

But the study he cites is the famous longitudinal study of precocious 13 year olds, who were already identified as gifted! Given the social makeup of the US, it is highly likely (the study cites that 75% of the kids were white, 20% were Asian) that the participants were middle class kids, with ample opportunities to develop their talents. This is a very skewed sample, but even then, there is no mention of high achievements in music, theater, dance etc by age 38. Yes, these kids probably enriched their college environments but clearly they aren't outliers.

What’s confusing is he seems open to the dimensions of geographical diversity income and even race! So he seems to just be upset that we don’t disregard major and talent- which are key to institutional priorities. I guess he’d want to eliminate essays.

I see no benefit to eliminating a student who has a 1490 but is an expert cellist over a kid who is not uniquely interesting other than a 4.0 and 1600.