Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever since the tech bros got on the scene, people have been obsessed with IQ.

Yes, if you think your child is the next Pierre Bourdieu or Harold Bloom, IQ dictates much of their life and, frankly, will ostracize them a bit. I don’t mean to offend, but highly intelligent people tend to be neurodivergent or social outsiders. These types are great fits for a PhD and eventually rise quickly in their fields, but I don’t think it makes sense to center the entirety of undergrad around capturing the highest talent for a PhD.

False. It’s just a smear campaign against the highly intelligent people, and it only happens in the U.S.

Nonsense. I am one of those ‘highly intelligent’ souls (well beyond top 1%) and I am neurodivergent as well. I am sometimes a social outsider and at times I struggle with more typical people but I would not have wanted my entire college experience to be an environment solely of people similar to myself. However, I do really dislike lax bros. if that is any consolation.

Anonymous wrote:There is research showing the effect of SES on SAT scores. If you take SAT scores from schools in low SES neighborhoods and schools in high SES neighborhoods, there are substantial differences. There are many factors at play in low SES neighborhoods that correlate to lower scores. Using SAT scores leads to the admission of kids whose parents are educated, who are higher SES, who have more resources for educational support and eventually test prep, who have more tech available in the home, whose kids are involved in extracurricular vs working to help support the family etc.

Ability and income levels are also correlated.

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?)

Of course they are! A higher percentage of high income families value education, college, and work ethic than low income

Looking forward to seeing you replace your roof and pick lettuce.

I have taught at universities in other countries where test scores are the end-all be-all. Universities are not the same dynamic communities of learning that they are here. Additionally, the tests themselves have evolved to be much more like AP exams than the SAT.

Also, Europe, for example maintains social mobility with a compressed salary schedule, not by making sure that bricklayers' kids get PhDs. In a lot of European countries, the kids who get into universities are the children of university graduates. They get a lot of vocabulary, test taking skills etc. from home. They are sorted into college preparatory tracks between the ages of 12 and 15. Who do you think scores well on a sorting exam at age 13? Hint: not the construction laborer's kid. Schools are not the great equalizers. Go into a well off neighborhood in the US, Asia, or London. Walk around and count the privately run test prep centers.

If you want applications to be less intense, you need employers to cast a wider net. Many are, these days.

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?)

Of course they are! A higher percentage of high income families value education, college, and work ethic than low income

There is research showing the effect of SES on SAT scores. If you take SAT scores from schools in low SES neighborhoods and schools in high SES neighborhoods, there are substantial differences. There are many factors at play in low SES neighborhoods that correlate to lower scores. Using SAT scores leads to the admission of kids whose parents are educated, who are higher SES, who have more resources for educational support and eventually test prep, who have more tech available in the home, whose kids are involved in extracurricular vs working to help support the family etc.

The reality is that if these schools set a 1500 SAT minimum, they would admit 1-2% black and latino kids.

No school wants that demographic crisis, and so they have "holistic factors."

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is better but they don’t give averages for anything. So people with top sats have 0.43 better GPAs on average, but they also go to Harvard- which is extremely grade inflated and it’s not like 0.43 makes or breaks anything.

It tells you those with lower scores are 5x more likely to struggle…and then it doesn’t give you a rate. I could tell you that something increases your chance of a rare disease contact by 10x, and as significant as that is, that could be a change of 0.0005% to 0.005%.