Harvard Psychologist argues for admissions reform

[Anonymous]

Well duh. We just need to admit on academic merit and crack down on grade inflation, like the rest of the world. When all is said and done, academic merit criteria have the least socio-economic and racial inequalities compared to extra-curricular achievements and other assessments. And by academic merit, I mean nationalized test scores, since every school can cook up its gpa however it likes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Test score is very predictive. IB and consulting firms all ask for your test scores, even it's taken years ago.

IB and consulting are trickster industries that exist because corporate people are insecure about their own intelligence and/or their companies can't pay direct wages as high as top scorers would like.

There's so much evidence that these "Smartest people in the room" are not geniuses. Exhibit A: Goldman Sachs couldn't even run a credit card business correctly. A fairly known and predictable business. I had one of their credit cards. Customer service was beyond terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sure there is a group and maybe he is one of them that says being an expert cellist or Olympic level athlete not only takes talent but a HUGE investment both in money and time. Aka one parent is a stay at home parent.

Maybe the thought is kids that have incredible ideas and grit. Other measures of aptitude.

Even then, to dream and have ideas is a luxury of someone not in survival mode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well duh. We just need to admit on academic merit and crack down on grade inflation, like the rest of the world. When all is said and done, academic merit criteria have the least socio-economic and racial inequalities compared to extra-curricular achievements and other assessments. And by academic merit, I mean nationalized test scores, since every school can cook up its gpa however it likes.

And yet the rest of world wants to study at Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Test scores would be more predictive still if they were not censored at the top. If you have a lot of people maxing out the test (or close) then there are not enough hard questions.

Unfortunately that would reveal greater racial disparities, since Asian scores are clustering at the max. Which is maybe why this is the way it is.

[Anonymous]

Well they all reinstated test required, didn’t they? One by one. There will be more test required next year. It’s been an interesting experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Test score is very predictive. IB and consulting firms all ask for your test scores, even it's taken years ago.

Not true.

The white bros getting jobs through their uncles aren’t even cracking 1200 scores.

It's who you know in IB and consulting.

[Anonymous]

For the AP super fans, just understand College Board inflated scores with their “recalibration” of 22-24, significantly devaluing the scores for everyone especially those with 4’s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Test score is very predictive. IB and consulting firms all ask for your test scores, even it's taken years ago.

My kid was asked for SAT for multiple competitive stem/engineering internships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it would end up producing a demographic mix that the alumni and donors would have a heart attack over.

I will get criticized for this, but almost no one wants to attend a school that's 65% suburban striver Asian kids, 30% white kids, and black/latinos making up maybe 5% at most. The campus environment would be incredibly dreary, and everyone knows this.

Why? Because of their skin color?
Nobody complained about white strivers. They will applaud URM strivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test score is very predictive. IB and consulting firms all ask for your test scores, even it's taken years ago.

Not true.

The white bros getting jobs through their uncles aren’t even cracking 1200 scores.

It's who you know in IB and consulting.

Top firms that mostly recruit at target schools(ivy/stanford/mit) are not hiring bros with 1200s

[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.

If Harvard wants, they could make their own test like Oxbridge do, or ask the college board to raise the statistically valid ceiling on the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test score is very predictive. IB and consulting firms all ask for your test scores, even it's taken years ago.

Not true.

The white bros getting jobs through their uncles aren’t even cracking 1200 scores.

It's who you know in IB and consulting.

Top firms that mostly recruit at target schools(ivy/stanford/mit) are not hiring bros with 1200s

Also “very predictive” doesn’t mean it predicts everything. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Having quotas for tuba players and soccer goalies and giving them a thumb on the scale sounds ridiculous to me.

The issue is grade inflation and how to bring that down. There is no silver bullet that can replace multi-year academic performance and grit, character. A standardized test that can be taken over and over again for 10 years and some rich people can buy fake diagnosis to take them with unfair time accommodations.

It shouldn't be typical for most good students in a particular school to get straight As in high schools all 3-4 years. One C or several Bs should not be seen as the end of the world either but as a place for growth and learning. Grade 11 grades (junior year) should be the year where grades are the most important. Maybe GPA should be just grade 11 and 1st term of grade 12?

APs and honors classes should not be given "bonus points" because people have an incentive to load up. They should just be looked as measure of rigor, not GPA inflators.

The issue is grade inflation and ruining the value of GPAs.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it would end up producing a demographic mix that the alumni and donors would have a heart attack over.

I will get criticized for this, but almost no one wants to attend a school that's 65% suburban striver Asian kids, 30% white kids, and black/latinos making up maybe 5% at most. The campus environment would be incredibly dreary, and everyone knows this.

Why? Because of their skin color?
Nobody complained about white strivers. They will applaud URM strivers.

Well, yes. You think the WASP donors are donating tens of millions to a school they can no longer recognize? They want to envision their kids going to Harvard. It's hard to do that when Harvard is 70% Asian.