TJ - 100+ NMSFs

[Anonymous]

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.

In other words, you are one of those social justice / equity warriors. Got it.

That’s not the diss that you think it is. Go off though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is saying you can't consider anything else but described high test scores on the PSATs as:

"realistically it's just another measure that only takes test-taking skills into account"

Test scores are the best took we have for identifying the best talent from all backgrounds.

The (questionable) idea that they're the best tool we have doesn't mean that they're a *good* tool at all. Relentlessly people are in search of objectivity in a field that doesn't need it. The most successful corporations in the world don't hire (or usually fire) based on objective measures - they hire smart people to make subjective decisions about who will be in the best overall interest of the institution.

Objectivity in selection processes for kids leads to destructive parent behavior as they seek to optimize their child's application to look like the objective standard.

Higher scores are usually a good indication of who invested the miost in prep.

Higher scores are a good indication of who is the most prepared.

Fixed it for you. This persistent notion that standardized tests are some ubik's cube that anyone can be good if l at is you know "the trick" to solving it is mad coping mechanism that you really only see in America. Everywhere else, they accept the science behind testing.

I don’t think that is what PP meant and your response is always typical gaslighting.
The argument is mostly just about :
Test is one of the tool VS test is the only tool.
The later is mostly driven by the test prep industry .. if not, what else it could possibly be.

True, and if two kids with identical skills and intellect took the same standardized test but one had the benefit of extensive prep they would score higher. It has nothing to do with ability especially when many of these tests just measure exposure.

If two kids with identical skills and intellect took the same test, they would get similar scores. Deductible reasoning is a skill.

This is broadly true unless the exam in question is time-bound, which the Quant-Q definitely was. Knowing the tricks in advance was a huge advantage and far less impressive than the kids who could figure out the tricks during the exam having not seen it before.