Harvard Psychologist argues for admissions reform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a kid who had a lower SAT score because of HHI. My own kid had Khan and other sophisticated online programs that were free or nearly free.

I think the era of SAT = wealth is over.

But talk to me about athletes and legacy before any of the rest of this.

According to the College Board’s own data, scores are still highly correlated with income. (And if you don’t trust their data, why would you trust their exam?)

There is no meaningful differentiator that isn’t highly correlated with income. The question is what’s harder to buy - tests, essays, GPA, ECs, sports, etc.

There is actually a study showing that essay scores are even more highly correlated to parental income than sat scores or grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think that first paragraph is quite accurate. It seems to overstate much of the predictive value.

Tests would be fine in my mind but you would need to go off of more than just the SAT. Maybe more subject tests. Something like A levels or AP but more standardized.

Yeah, SAT are not that predictive of "success in life" or in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an easy test. Follow a cohort ('25-'29) of Harvard students and ask each professor across a year long period who the most competent student in their class is. Throw out courses with a high amount of class year variability, and collect the SAT scores of each of those students. If Pinker is correct, the most competent students should consistently be high scorers 1580+, more so than the undergraduate pool, so greater than 25% of responses.

And I'm willing to bet big $$$ that is not true. Plenty of kids with a 1500 are highly motivated and work harder than those with a 1580. I'll take the highly motivated smart kid any day over the "really smart on a test kid who isn't as highly motivated"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG they can accept whomever they wish. When will people realize that? Start your own uni if you want to determine who gets to attend.

+100

[Anonymous]

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.

Why is that ridiculous? They can fill their freshman class 18 times with highly qualified applicants. So they will choose the best "balance across many factors" of that 80%. They don't need 80% of the kids being engineering or STEM based premed. They want a balance across everything. And yes, if they need that tuba player or viola player, well kudos to the kid who has something more unique than others.

[Anonymous]

Agree that sat score is the least tied to wealth. ECs, essays, sports, grades can easily be bought with money.

[Anonymous]

The ONLY way to reduce the stress is to cut the cost by 70-90%. Go back to the days when college was 10 K a year in tuition and 5 K for room and board. Go back to when you lived in a double not a triple or quadruple in a double room.

There is so much intense pressure on the top 30 or top 50 and intense pressure on state schools because fewer people can stomach the costs of 70-90 K a year for everything below.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think that first paragraph is quite accurate. It seems to overstate much of the predictive value.

Tests would be fine in my mind but you would need to go off of more than just the SAT. Maybe more subject tests. Something like A levels or AP but more standardized.

Yeah, SAT are not that predictive of "success in life" or in college.

Your data and Source?

See the Chetty paper linked above that refutes your claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG they can accept whomever they wish. When will people realize that? Start your own uni if you want to determine who gets to attend.

You wish! But no, it’s not up to you at all. Too bad! Cut all the federal fundings and let’s see if they continue with the racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a kid who had a lower SAT score because of HHI. My own kid had Khan and other sophisticated online programs that were free or nearly free.

I think the era of SAT = wealth is over.

But talk to me about athletes and legacy before any of the rest of this.

According to the College Board’s own data, scores are still highly correlated with income. (And if you don’t trust their data, why would you trust their exam?)

There’s much more variation in income bands than there is across income bands. Smart people generally make more money than stupid people, and since intelligence is highly heritable the children of more well off parents are on average smarter than the children of poorer parents.

People don’t like this, but it’s reality.

DP. I really don’t care if the tests measure some sort of innate capacity or if they measure environmental nurturing. It’s probably a bit of both. But whatever the case, the test scores do show if you are well prepared for college. Reading comprehension is important for college success. Math competency is also important for the STEM majors. It is a sad fact that SAT scores and college preparedness are correlated with parental income, but I believe that if we are gong to fix this societal problem, it is not going to be at the college admissions level. I come from a city where some high school graduates are illiterate. We’ve gotta target the interventions way earlier.

Curious, why is this sad? Is it a “sad” fact that children of athletes are generally pretty good athletes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Meh I did a bunch of extracurriculars as a dirt poor kid whose family was homeless for most of high school. If you have the aptitude, you’ll get there.

For most students who need opportunities, it is not the Ivy League they’re considering, so we need to stop framing this discussion as if we’re saving poor kids when really we’re talking about the best of the best.

I’m from a working class family whose parents did not go to college. I did lots of free activities at my high school- sports, theater, chorus. I also had a part time job on weekends and worked more hours in the summers. There’s lots of ways to show that you are more than just an academic achiever that don’t cost any money- and may even pay you.

The only activities at school I couldn’t do were those involving musical instruments or higher musical knowledge because my parents couldn’t afford instruments or lessons. But other than those, I could get involved in so many after school activities at my school that were free. I was accepted at an Ivy but chose a different school, so lack of “middle class” activities didn’t affect my applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Meh I did a bunch of extracurriculars as a dirt poor kid whose family was homeless for most of high school. If you have the aptitude, you’ll get there.

For most students who need opportunities, it is not the Ivy League they’re considering, so we need to stop framing this discussion as if we’re saving poor kids when really we’re talking about the best of the best.

A lot of posters are rich white moms whose kids do not perform academically. Holistic review benefits this group of families as they can work on ECs and essays with paid coaches and consultants. Yes they frame the discussion in name of equity, but no they are in names only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Meh I did a bunch of extracurriculars as a dirt poor kid whose family was homeless for most of high school. If you have the aptitude, you’ll get there.

For most students who need opportunities, it is not the Ivy League they’re considering, so we need to stop framing this discussion as if we’re saving poor kids when really we’re talking about the best of the best.

I’m from a working class family whose parents did not go to college. I did lots of free activities at my high school- sports, theater, chorus. I also had a part time job on weekends and worked more hours in the summers. There’s lots of ways to show that you are more than just an academic achiever that don’t cost any money- and may even pay you.

The only activities at school I couldn’t do were those involving musical instruments or higher musical knowledge because my parents couldn’t afford instruments or lessons. But other than those, I could get involved in so many after school activities at my school that were free. I was accepted at an Ivy but chose a different school, so lack of “middle class” activities didn’t affect my applications.

+1, people typically argue that the extracurriculars harm poor kids, but I don’t know a kid who doesn’t engage in some type of extracurricular if they’re academically talented, whether rich or poor. ECs aren’t just expensive paid options- they’re after school programs, church groups, and jobs- many low income students work jobs to help their families and admissions committees look favorably at this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Meh I did a bunch of extracurriculars as a dirt poor kid whose family was homeless for most of high school. If you have the aptitude, you’ll get there.

For most students who need opportunities, it is not the Ivy League they’re considering, so we need to stop framing this discussion as if we’re saving poor kids when really we’re talking about the best of the best.

I’m from a working class family whose parents did not go to college. I did lots of free activities at my high school- sports, theater, chorus. I also had a part time job on weekends and worked more hours in the summers. There’s lots of ways to show that you are more than just an academic achiever that don’t cost any money- and may even pay you.

The only activities at school I couldn’t do were those involving musical instruments or higher musical knowledge because my parents couldn’t afford instruments or lessons. But other than those, I could get involved in so many after school activities at my school that were free. I was accepted at an Ivy but chose a different school, so lack of “middle class” activities didn’t affect my applications.

+1, people typically argue that the extracurriculars harm poor kids, but I don’t know a kid who doesn’t engage in some type of extracurricular if they’re academically talented, whether rich or poor. ECs aren’t just expensive paid options- they’re after school programs, church groups, and jobs- many low income students work jobs to help their families and admissions committees look favorably at this.

UPenn specifically asks applicants if they have been a caregiver for a family member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an easy test. Follow a cohort ('25-'29) of Harvard students and ask each professor across a year long period who the most competent student in their class is. Throw out courses with a high amount of class year variability, and collect the SAT scores of each of those students. If Pinker is correct, the most competent students should consistently be high scorers 1580+, more so than the undergraduate pool, so greater than 25% of responses.

Google opportunity insights and test scores.