What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?

[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?

[Anonymous]

Students are not any kind of "ocracy" in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they are using the actual test as a practice test? I went to school eons ago in another country where we did a standardised test. Everyone got a few sessions in school to explain how it worked, try practice tests, etc then we took the test once. In this day and age, how hard could it be to design an online system that provides practice opportunities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with more focus on standardized tests, but combined with adjustment for background. We're not rich or especially connected, but still among my kids parents and grandparents, we have 7 grad degrees and 3 Ivy degrees. If they had an 1500+ SAT score, that is way less impressive than a 1300 from a child of high school dropouts. And grades matter, but that 1300 kid might be at a school where straight As just mean you can read and write and show up to class, so admissions officers can't get much information from grades alone.

The interesting thing about this is that the research shows that SAT scores predict college performance pretty much independently of background. I.e. a poor kid with a 1300 performs on average the same as a rich kid that got a 1300.

[Anonymous]

A meritocratic process wouldn't be about too many people vying for too few seats but rather a way to provide quality education based on aptitude and aspirations whatever they are. This would rightly feel like socialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges look for future leaders, that concept is vastly different from Olympiad winners. Olympia competition is limited to math, physics, chemistry, biology, information science. Limiting seats to Olympia winners is an extremely weird idea. The majority of math Olympia winners end up at Jane Street and Citadel. Do we want that for our society as a whole? Naw.

I think, if anything, we should exclude these Olympia people from the top colleges. They are free to attend state universities and such.

That’s one of the most stupid comment I’ve read on this forum.

Are you afraid they ruin the curve at your kid’s Ivy?

Doing well in those competitions or other stem competitions for that matter, builds critical thinking and resilience, plus that they have a higher IQ than most kids.

What would you do to test the other 50% of the campus that aren't in these specific testable majors?

There are only a few hundred campers each year, can’t even fill a liberal art college.

Then just have JS set up JSU to collect those, a pipeline better than Bucknell.

Palantir already has gotten started by giving internships to students committed to not going to college. It'd honestly be amazing for everyone if these kinds of people skipped out on education.

They belong there.

They don't want it. They'd be best trained in private industry, doing the challenging problems that peak their interests, rather than boring problem sets and getting an education that they don't care for.

Agree. They are not good match with ivies.

Some of them stuck in complex relationships with fictional figures until their late 20s. Not a good image