Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's great that TJ has more semifinalists, but realistically it's just another measure that only takes test-taking skills into account. When you stop overselecting for test-taking skills in an admissions process, any other metric that relies entirely on test-taking skills is going to decline as well.
That only really means anything of significance if you're one of these retrograde thinkers who believes that standardized tests are the end-all-be-all of determining "merit" because "everyone has the same opportunity" when they don't.
These tests measure a thing. A century of research tells us that the thing it measures is not some niche "test taking" skill.
It measures the same thing in poor/rich, black white, male/female.
There is at least as much science (in terms of research) behind this than there is behind the big bang or global warming.
There's literally thousands of replicable studies on this.
If you want to lie to yourself so you can sleep at night, that's fine. But we shouldn't base policy on those lies.
+1 Find us a better metric to judge performance of students and let us know. It certainly isn't personal statement essays written by college consultants earning big $$$.
I'm not really arguing in favor of another metric to judge performance of students. I am generally okay with using standardized exams to measure some base level of competence in the way that they're used for the SOLs or MSPAPs, especially when they compare an individual student's performance year over year.
As someone who has worked in admissions before, philosophically I've grown to understand that the healthiest elite academic environments most likely to produce exceptional creativity are those who use their admissions processes not to assemble a collection of the highest scorers or even the "best" students. Doing it right involves putting together a group of students who are both competent and collaborative, especially in problem-solving areas.
Oftentimes exceptional test takers are also extraordinarily self-involved, and no elite institution needs yet another student who will show up for four years, get straight As, contribute nothing to the school environment either during or after their tenure, and go off in search of income rather than impact. Use exams as a data point, sure, but as a gatekeeper they do more harm than good.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}