What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need more required subject tests. Like British A levels etc.

AP exams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff you can lock this. It has been argued to death. High stats moms want more tests. Test optional moms begin to challenge the concept of meritocracy. Same old same old.

There's more conversation going on than that. You...can just leave this thread, instead of wasting everyone else's time.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if some of the "clustering" of the SAT at/near the 1600 boundary might be reduced (and thus add useful information) by eliminating superscoring and restricting the number of test to some threshold (e.g. three testing events). Seems like an easier maneuver to implement than full blown test redesign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the "clustering" of the SAT at/near the 1600 boundary might be reduced (and thus add useful information) by eliminating superscoring and restricting the number of test to some threshold (e.g. three testing events). Seems like an easier maneuver to implement than full blown test redesign.

That reminds me of the candidate selection process for U.S. Presidential Scholars, which I think usually defines a n~6000 student universe.

[Anonymous]

How many single sitting SAT 1600's are achieved each year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the "clustering" of the SAT at/near the 1600 boundary might be reduced (and thus add useful information) by eliminating superscoring and restricting the number of test to some threshold (e.g. three testing events). Seems like an easier maneuver to implement than full blown test redesign.

Why have any super scoring or retakes? In other countries with standardised testing, there isn’t any (eg UK, Australia). Isn’t this just a way for the companies to increase their revenue? If people do the test 2-3 times then that means the company gets 2 to 3 times the fees.

To prepare for the tests, students could just do practice test instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the "clustering" of the SAT at/near the 1600 boundary might be reduced (and thus add useful information) by eliminating superscoring and restricting the number of test to some threshold (e.g. three testing events). Seems like an easier maneuver to implement than full blown test redesign.

Why have any super scoring or retakes? In other countries with standardised testing, there isn’t any (eg UK, Australia). Isn’t this just a way for the companies to increase their revenue? If people do the test 2-3 times then that means the company gets 2 to 3 times the fees.

To prepare for the tests, students could just do practice test instead.

+1, you mess up- boohoo. It is better for us to accurately assess student than letting them retest infinitely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many single sitting SAT 1600's are achieved each year?

With super scoring , there is less pressure on the first sitting. If only one sitting was allowed, kids would just take it later and do a zillion practice tests before it.

[Anonymous]

I would be fine if schools gave a good boost for AA kids, actual low income kids, kids in the foster care system. I’d even be fine if schools gave a bump for major donors, recruited athletes at schools that are truly competitive, equal spots for both genders but that’s it. Veteran, rural, Hispanic, badminton, cheerleaders, first generation…just no.

I also agree that having subject tests like APs or British A levels would be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many single sitting SAT 1600's are achieved each year?

With super scoring , there is less pressure on the first sitting. If only one sitting was allowed, kids would just take it later and do a zillion practice tests before it.

This! If only one sitting, private tutoring business will profit like hell. Everyone has enormous pressure to perform in that one sitting, and they will prep and prep.

Most kids in my DC's school do not prep at all to take the first sitting as a practice/baseline setting. Compared to the cost for private tutoring, registration fees for SAT is relatively very small. It's nothing. Current system is conducive to encouraging self study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many single sitting SAT 1600's are achieved each year?

I think there are some estimates of 500-1000 estimates per year per google search, but I don’t see real data for this for recent years.

[Anonymous]

You can’t include ECs or other activities for true meritocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meritocracy is the wrong word. That implies that accepted students are better or more deserving.

Better at what? More capable of performing college level work? More creative? More innovative or entrepreneurial? More likely to contribute to the culture of the institution and social experience of other students?

More deserving? How?

What will it look like? It will look like a student body at elite school made up of kids with families who have the knowledge, privilege, and ability to invest heavily in their kids and rich kids whose families outsourced that type of coaching and steering. It will be a less diverse and less interesting student body that will result in less innovation and a stagnant economy.

Lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family.

[Anonymous]

I thought holistic review actually got it right for my kid and most of his private school peers this year. I am sure someone is going to suggest I "start a different thread", but I think I have a different view of what defines merit than just a SAT score. And btw, my kid did a get a non superscored 1600. I think its meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t include ECs or other activities for true meritocracy.

Can we still have the math Olympiad?