Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Hillary and Kamala- great public servants who would've been excellent presidents if not for racism , misogyny, and white women embracing the white patriarchy.

JD Vance - book author who faked his upbringing to get to Harvard. DeSantis- a Trump sycophant who has the personality of a piece of wood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

Standardized testing is highly correlated with household income. You're OK with "high income, coastal elites" getting most of the slots, but the majority are not. There are also built-in biases with standardized tests that UMC parents ignore and rampant cheating with "testing accommodations," again by families with money..

Unless there's some weighting/indexing of SAT/ACT scores by zip code, your proposed system won't work.

Or maybe both test scores and test scores are correlated with intelligence. Seems more likely.

First, standardized tests are not IQ tests.

Second, there's no refuting the HHI and test scores correlation. Let's not even get into superscoring results which also benefits families that can pay for multiple tests.

Third, write a coherent sentence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

You do know that the Kentucky Bar exam (JD) is not nearly as hard as the California exam, which has the lowest pass rate in the country/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

Standardized testing is highly correlated with household income. You're OK with "high income, coastal elites" getting most of the slots, but the majority are not. There are also built-in biases with standardized tests that UMC parents ignore and rampant cheating with "testing accommodations," again by families with money..

Unless there's some weighting/indexing of SAT/ACT scores by zip code, your proposed system won't work.

Or maybe both test scores and test scores are correlated with intelligence. Seems more likely.

I’m not a fan of merit-only because there are so many factors that don’t get accounted for that make for a good student. Did the student’s parents pay for SAT prep? How do you compare a student who only studied during HS versus the student who held down a part-time job? What level of maturity does the student have? Can someone who doesn’t have the higher grades contributed a viewpoint that is novel or unique?

My son was not a top student compared to his peers in HS; however, he was a reader and had a strong interest in a particular science. He did not get into a top school, but he is an outstanding student in college. Some of it was maturity; some of it was finding his passion. He is going to do great things. (He also won a fantastic internship, so while merit didn’t get him into college, it certainly will get him beyond college).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Many years ago NYS kept one 4 year state college called Old Westbury a 100 percent acceptance college. No longer the case. At time did not even require HS degree. Under NYS law if you complete 60 credits you get automatic HS equivalency.

It had high failure rates. But many kids graduated with a 4 year degree.

True merit let all kids in and if can’t do work fail then out.

No legacy, URM, First Gen, or Rick folks with essay writing coach’s and expensive SAT tutors and puffed up ECs. Let them all in and see who makes it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did pretty well on the SAT and in general I support standardized testing against baseless charges of racism, but I think making it the ONLY focus of admissions would be a mistake. The EC hustle is annoying I know, but it filters out the studious drones and selects for kids with gumption and leadership potential, which serves us well in competition with Asia and Europe.

The EC hustle is definitely a hustle all right. All these kids being sent on language camps overseas, building wells in poor countries, going to $$$ specialty camps (eg creative writing, music, marine biology), bring bankrolled for years of private sports clinics by their parents, getting private college admissions consultants. You’re telling me a college admissions process based around this is more merit-based than straight academics? How about every student does a SAT prep class at school and they can only have one try at the SAT? That would level the playing field somewhat.

I don't necessarily think it's more merit based, but it yields better results. I do think SAT should be more of a factor.

Anonymous wrote:I did pretty well on the SAT and in general I support standardized testing against baseless charges of racism, but I think making it the ONLY focus of admissions would be a mistake. The EC hustle is annoying I know, but it filters out the studious drones and selects for kids with gumption and leadership potential, which serves us well in competition with Asia and Europe.

The EC hustle is definitely a hustle all right. All these kids being sent on language camps overseas, building wells in poor countries, going to $$$ specialty camps (eg creative writing, music, marine biology), bring bankrolled for years of private sports clinics by their parents, getting private college admissions consultants. You’re telling me a college admissions process based around this is more merit-based than straight academics? How about every student does a SAT prep class at school and they can only have one try at the SAT? That would level the playing field somewhat.

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

You've got 80% of colleges test optional and the University of California system test blind.

Ain't happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be all Asians OP.

What's wrong with that?

It wouldn’t be. The caucasians would just adapt to what works best as they currently do and the outcomes would remain pretty much as they are.

I did pretty well on the SAT and in general I support standardized testing against baseless charges of racism, but I think making it the ONLY focus of admissions would be a mistake. The EC hustle is annoying I know, but it filters out the studious drones and selects for kids with gumption and leadership potential, which serves us well in competition with Asia and Europe.

Anonymous wrote:Op here I’m trying to understand the end goal with this idea of no dei and going to a merit based system. This seems like the only way to please the republicans.

F the Republicans.

4 years will go by fast. Just like the college years...

Op here I’m trying to understand the end goal with this idea of no dei and going to a merit based system. This seems like the only way to please the republicans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

How about starting with speaking out against white supremacy that has infected many of the systems, including K-12 education?

When mediocre white guys can be Secretary of Defense , run HHS, or be POTUS, there's no such thing as "merit."

Even standardized testing in the U.S. come from racist origins.

White supremacy? LOL

Something funny Tucker?