Anonymous wrote:Standardized tests reward a certain kind of learning and prep. It's helpful but not a full or super nuanced picture. It is mostly a multiple choice test. I'd hate to be reduced to a number like on the South Korean CSAT although that is only once per year and no retest and covers 5 different subjects not just two.

I think grades, interviews, references and essays are more important than prepping for a standardized test resourced students can prep for and take unlimited times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test score is very predictive. IB and consulting firms all ask for your test scores, even it's taken years ago.

My kid was asked for SAT for multiple competitive stem/engineering internships.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it would end up producing a demographic mix that the alumni and donors would have a heart attack over.

I will get criticized for this, but almost no one wants to attend a school that's 65% suburban striver Asian kids, 30% white kids, and black/latinos making up maybe 5% at most. The campus environment would be incredibly dreary, and everyone knows this.

Why? Because of their skin color?
Nobody complained about white strivers. They will applaud URM strivers.

Well, yes. You think the WASP donors are donating tens of millions to a school they can no longer recognize? They want to envision their kids going to Harvard. It's hard to do that when Harvard is 70% Asian.

Anonymous wrote:Well there's an easy issue with this approach. There's too many 1600s, and if people know they can just get a 1600 and get into Harvard, many people will just retest over and over till they get the score they want.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it would end up producing a demographic mix that the alumni and donors would have a heart attack over.

I will get criticized for this, but almost no one wants to attend a school that's 65% suburban striver Asian kids, 30% white kids, and black/latinos making up maybe 5% at most. The campus environment would be incredibly dreary, and everyone knows this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny how no one makes the argument for AP exam scores only. Things that make you go hmm? 🤨

This has always been my wonder from the meritocracy gurus. AP exams are a much better thing to promote- subject specificity, performance over time, and ability to show standardized mastery. It’s the perfect solution, but they’re hung up on the SAT.

DS got a 1410 sat, but a 5 on Calc Bc, English Lit, Physics C: Mechanics and E&M, and AP US History (along with other tests). He’s done great in JHUs math program, but for some reason, people think it makes more sense to judge his intellect on an algebra2 exam.

Not debating that AP scores cover broader knowledge but wouldn’t the problem be accessibility? Not all high schools offer AP’s, some only a few. Having AP scores as the metric would likely disqualify significant number of students

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it would end up producing a demographic mix that the alumni and donors would have a heart attack over.

I will get criticized for this, but almost no one wants to attend a school that's 65% suburban striver Asian kids, 30% white kids, and black/latinos making up maybe 5% at most. The campus environment would be incredibly dreary, and everyone knows this.

Why? Because of their skin color?
Nobody complained about white strivers. They will applaud URM strivers.

Well, yes. You think the WASP donors are donating tens of millions to a school they can no longer recognize? They want to envision their kids going to Harvard. It's hard to do that when Harvard is 70% Asian.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Having quotas for tuba players and soccer goalies and giving them a thumb on the scale sounds ridiculous to me.

The issue is grade inflation and how to bring that down. There is no silver bullet that can replace multi-year academic performance and grit, character. A standardized test that can be taken over and over again for 10 years and some rich people can buy fake diagnosis to take them with unfair time accommodations.

It shouldn't be typical for most good students in a particular school to get straight As in high schools all 3-4 years. One C or several Bs should not be seen as the end of the world either but as a place for growth and learning. Grade 11 grades (junior year) should be the year where grades are the most important. Maybe GPA should be just grade 11 and 1st term of grade 12?

APs and honors classes should not be given "bonus points" because people have an incentive to load up. They should just be looked as measure of rigor, not GPA inflators.

The issue is grade inflation and ruining the value of GPAs.

Anonymous wrote:Pinker's arguments are weird and if it were a class paper from a student, should get a low grade. The studies he cites are either assessing outliers (the first one that tracked a cohort of 13 year olds that were administered the SAT decades ago) or ones that were conducted before College Board revamped SAT and before the growth of the prep industry to its now pervasive levels. In fact the study he cites (conducted by the UC faculty senate) does conclude that SAT scores are different across various groups and therefore must be accounted for, which the UC system does.

Admittedly, factors such as legacy, donors, niche sports etc do skew the system. But tying admissions to a specific score is fraught as well (see the insane IIT-JEE system in India). There will always have to be a thumb on the scale -- the question is whose thumb and in whose favor.