Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family is from an Asian country where tests determine the course of your future and I find the entire system does not necessarily produce the most innovation and people spend years learning to take these tests and prepping when they could have used that time for other academic exploration. Why would we want college campuses where everyone has the same abilities? Particularly for non-stem majors it really does not make any sense to me.
Many of the most modern advances of this century were a product of the US education system and I think a large part of that is because there is such a diversity of though, a climate of innovation and push-back, and a global talent pool. Anyway just curious about the thoughts of others, particularly test proponents, and whether they really think that a student with a 1570 SAT is adding more to a campus than someone with a 1400 SAT.

Failed attempt at pretending to be an Asian

You do realize that the vast majority of innovators are intelligent and likely have high test scores. Before you ask me to prove it, I'd ask you to prove that these innovators have poor test scores. I'll wait.

OP here, why would I pretend to be Asian? I have posted here before, I'm South Asian but my DH is not. This is just my perspective but I think that the US education system particularly at elite universities is enviable (of course, not without its faults) and part of the reason is bc universities have so much freedom in creating unique classes.

When it comes to innovation and career-success, people need to get comfortable with "smart enough". A kid with a 1400 is smart enough to achieve 99% of what a kid with 1600 is able to achieve....most comes to down to individual personality and work ethic.

Yes, the Einstein's of the world are the only ones capable of creating entirely new ways of thought, so there are some things only that gifted 1% or 0.1% can achieve.

Jun Huh won the Fields Medal in Mathematics and was a HS dropout who did poorly in HS Mathematics. However, he was "smart enough" and found an interest in Mathematics after taking a class in Mathematics by a noted Mathematician. Here is just a snippet of his bio:

Early in his studies he was mentored by Japanese Fields medalist mathematician Heisuke Hironaka, who went to Seoul National University as a visiting professor.[1] Having failed several courses, Huh took an algebraic geometry course under Hironaka in his sixth year which focused on singularity theory and was based on Hironaka's current research rather than established teaching material. Huh credited the course with sparking his interest in research-level math.[6] Huh then proceeded to complete a master's degree at Seoul National University, while frequently travelling to Japan with Hironaka and acting as his personal assistant.[6] Due to his poor academic record as a undergraduate, Huh was rejected from all but one of the American universities that he applied to. He started his Ph.D. studies at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in 2009, before transferring in 2011 to the University of Michigan,[6] graduating in 2014 with a thesis written under the direction of Mircea Mustață at the age of 31.[8] He was awarded the Sumner Byron Myers Prize for his PhD thesis.[9]

Test scores, even when formerly required, were never the end all be all in admissions.

Even when I was applying 30 years ago and scores were required, they were just part of the picture of you overall.

US admissions has always been holistic in nature. GPA, test scores, activities, recommendations and background, location.

The US has never been like that---and they way we are now we are the EXACT opposite of that and I think a 'middle ground' approach like it used to be is better.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE with the perceived association between test emphasis and lack of innovation, but I agree that some Asian countries have developed an entirely unhealthy and stressful test prep situation with a high student suicide rate. It's not an innovation issue, it's a lifestyle/mental health issue.

Research and development requires ginormous funding. Up until recently, Asian countries were not wealthy enough to invest that much. Many still aren't, just like European countries, even though these nations are first world nations. You know who has become a major research investor? China. China is a major player in many fields of scientific research. In medical research, or example, I now come across a lot of high quality peer-reviewed articles from Chinese labs that are advancing multiple fields of medicine. In drone/EV/unmanned flight tech, they have hundreds of very interesting prototypes, more than in the EU and the US. I say this as a non-Chinese Asian! Japanese are still leaders in robotics.

The creativity and innovation you think is lacking is not stifled at all by focusing on test scores. It's just that it's nice to include a more balanced set of factors to select students, to make sure we aren't leaving out some gifted people who may have other skill sets than pure math or language, and to avoid making childhood miserable.

Anonymous wrote:My family is from an Asian country where tests determine the course of your future and I find the entire system does not necessarily produce the most innovation and people spend years learning to take these tests and prepping when they could have used that time for other academic exploration. Why would we want college campuses where everyone has the same abilities? Particularly for non-stem majors it really does not make any sense to me.
Many of the most modern advances of this century were a product of the US education system and I think a large part of that is because there is such a diversity of though, a climate of innovation and push-back, and a global talent pool. Anyway just curious about the thoughts of others, particularly test proponents, and whether they really think that a student with a 1570 SAT is adding more to a campus than someone with a 1400 SAT.

Failed attempt at pretending to be an Asian

You do realize that the vast majority of innovators are intelligent and likely have high test scores. Before you ask me to prove it, I'd ask you to prove that these innovators have poor test scores. I'll wait.

I appreciate your comment, and agree. I will add that in the current climate, only an Asian American person is allowed to say such things.

In the US, there is no danger that a single test result will determine one’s entire future the way it can in S Korea, India, PRC, or Taiwan. Colleges here always will factor in much more than just SAT/ACT and always have done so.

My family is from an Asian country where tests determine the course of your future and I find the entire system does not necessarily produce the most innovation and people spend years learning to take these tests and prepping when they could have used that time for other academic exploration. Why would we want college campuses where everyone has the same abilities? Particularly for non-stem majors it really does not make any sense to me.
Many of the most modern advances of this century were a product of the US education system and I think a large part of that is because there is such a diversity of though, a climate of innovation and push-back, and a global talent pool. Anyway just curious about the thoughts of others, particularly test proponents, and whether they really think that a student with a 1570 SAT is adding more to a campus than someone with a 1400 SAT.