

Colleges Want Students with Character, But Can’t Measure It - drjohnson
http://nautil.us/issue/12/feedback/colleges-want-students-with-character-but-cant-measure-it

======
Spooky23
Colleges are attempting to deal with claims of racial bias by watering down
their standards. The bias claims are there because disadvantaged groups are
well... Disadvantaged. They have a shitty education in primary school that
poisons the well for them.

Why should character or "heart" matter? What if you're a smart kid who is a
real asshole? Or a dumb kid with a good sales pitch? Or you didn't participate
in extra-circular activities for whatever reason? Why should some guy wading
through 10,000 applications be making some evaluation and judgement of my
character?

They should drop the pretense of some sort of fair selection process and just
do a pure lottery. If you can't read and get into Harvard, you'll wash out
quickly.

~~~
WalterBright
> If you can't read and get into Harvard, you'll wash out quickly.

A college does a disservice to students to admit them when they will wash out.

My experience as a student at Caltech in the 70's was they did a pretty good
job with the admissions. They selected for smart & motivated & interested in
tech. As a result, living in the dorms full of this kind of people, there was
never a dull moment.

I only knew a couple of students who clearly didn't belong there, and they
soon left.

~~~
Spooky23
They are doing that now to disadvantaged students. An acquaintance in my state
university was a smart guy from a notoriously awful high school.

He was completely overwhelmed and dropped out his first year -- he just wasn't
prepared for the material, and the remedial help offered by the college wasn't
very useful to someone who wanted to be in a STEM track. He dropped out,
joined the Army, and flourished... we're Facebook friends, and he has an MS in
CS now.

------
james1071
I have said this before, but the admissions system at so many US colleges
looks very strange to British eyes.

There is special treatment for people who play sport, whose parents went to
the same college (especially if they give money) and for those who have the
right sort of hobbies.

If that was not bad enough, there are different rules for different ethnic
groups.

It really is quite extraordinary.

------
RhysU
From TFA:

> The flaws in standardized testing are well-documented at this point....
> their predictive powers only forecast a student’s progress as far as the
> first semester of their freshman year.

Let's be honest. Raise your hand if you needed markedly more than your first
semester of freshman year to figure out which of your friends at college were
going to cut it in some traditional academic sense.

Not saying that's the only sense, but as far as the college should be able to
measure, academics for 4(+) years are the only fair initial barometer. Of
course, academics can't say anything about who can write a 7+ figure donation
to the college 30 years after graduation...

~~~
saalweachter
Actually, that's an interesting thought.

If you asked high-schoolers (not necessarily even seniors) which of their
peers would do the best in college, do you think they would give useful
answers?

------
danso
I'm glad I applied to college before ubiquitous digital storage was a
thing...I vaguely remember trying to come up with contrived ways to sound like
an interesting person. I think I even mentioned listening to country music.

In terms of measurements of character, has there been much thought given to
looking at longitudinal data of a student's career? An easy one would be
improvement on standardized tests over time. I qualified for the National
Merit Award because I happened to be doing prep work for SATs...I didn't even
know the PSATs meant anything, but just because I performed well on one test,
I was the beneficiary of all those schools who use "Number of National Merit
Scholars in freshman class" as some kind of quality metric...My SAT
performance afterward was only middling-good. I don't think that should've put
me in a higher bracket than someone who struggled at first, but rather than
giving up, did what it took to reach a higher percentile.

But what about students who go from being a flop, say, in their sophomore
year, to really growing in terms of performance and accomplishments by their
senior years? A student who, over 4 years, has a C average, but by senior
year, is acing AP classes...that takes a considerable amount of grit. And the
student is on the upswing. Hell, even a student who did no sports until senior
year, but manages to letter on a high-performing team in a sport new to
him/her...that to me is about as outstanding as a state champion who competed
since the age of 5.

------
toehead2000
Does anyone know how/where one might get access to a data set like the one he
uses in this paper? (1993 student demographic data, high school GPAs, SAT
scores, and freshman GPAs)

------
hawkharris
I've always been fascinated by the philosophical divide among the nations with
the best educational systems. Some (i.e. Finland) deemphasize tests, while
others such as India and South Korea place strong emphasis on them. The issue
is not black and white enough for us to categorically embrace or condemn
tests. Different cultural and environmental factors are obviously in play.

~~~
adamnemecek
Idk if the Indian educational system is considered the best (I'm actually
pretty sure that it's not). As for the South Korean educational system, idk if
it should be considered a model to follow considering kids there spend like 16
hours a day in school but perform comparatively well as kids in Finland who
spend maybe less than half of that time in school.

~~~
hawkharris
_Idk if the Indian educational system is considered the best (I 'm actually
pretty sure that it's not)._

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology)

 _As for the South Korean educational system, idk if it should be considered a
model to follow considering kids there spend like 16 hours a day in school but
perform comparatively well as kids in Finland who spend maybe less than half
of that time in school._

The point is that the children who learn through standardized tests are
performing just as well as, if not better than, those in an environment where
tests are deemphasized.

Having said that, it's hard to make the cross-cultural argument that
standardized testing is always positive or negative.

~~~
adamnemecek
Yes, I'm aware of IIT. That does not really disprove my point though. Your
argument is similar to if someone was said that Mexico is a poor country and
someone made a counterargument saying that Carlos Slim Helu lives in Mexico
ergo it's not a poor country.

> The point is that the children who learn through standardized tests are
> performing just as well as, if not better than, those in an environment
> where tests are deemphasized.

Kinda hard to argue with this if you are not providing what sort of metrics
you are using.

------
angersock
Maybe they should try doing a better job with helping students who have
financial problems or mental health issues?

That'd be an easy start.

~~~
yummyfajitas
That makes about as much sense as suggesting bar owners should try doing a
better job helping drinkers with infertility.

------
colechristensen
Maybe it isn't quite time for this question to be asked, but I'm damn well
sure that the day is soon.

Why are students being admitted into undergraduate programs any more?

There are no admissions for the Khan Academy, and a huge chunk of
undergraduate college education could be done in exactly that format.

Donate to have units created very well (and a few different versions just
because) copyleft. Pay Universities for thorough certification of knowledge
for particular subjects, and finally join Universities for capstone activities
which will grant degrees upon completion. Keep graduate-level education as is.

Why do there have to be tens of thousands of Calculus I courses every year
when one or two online would do? The technology and market exists for this,
but the inertia of an antiquated undergrad education system gets in the way.

~~~
cabinpark
While I can understand that for basic stuff, there is no way I would ever
attend an online course on some advanced undergraduate topics in physics or
mathematics online.

There is a benefit of being in a classroom environment when learning an
advanced subject. You have a direct connection to the professor and other
students, which is essential for advanced material. Plus you can easily go and
talk to them afterwards for more details. I learnt a lot by going to
professors office hours which doesn't work online.

Also, what about labs? Every science program I am aware of has a laboratory
component. That cannot be done at home. Plus good luck trying to get
universities to agree on what labs to do. Each university has different types
of researchers who focus on certain areas, which is reflected in the labs
selected. My former university, for example, had no particle physics people so
any lab related to particle physics would be misplaced. Instead they had a lot
of quantum people so the labs were more geared towards that. I know of another
university that had a lot of particle physics people and their labs reflected
this.

Another thought is research. How would undergraduates get exposed to research
in your system?

Thinking about it more, having TA'd first year calculus, you need to be able
to interact in real time with students. I think online resources are great and
I recommended them to my students, but they cannot replace face to face
interaction. This is something online technologies cannot replicate, so I say
it is a bad idea to even do it for basic things like calculus, which is very
fundamental to the sciences.

Personally, I think it is a noble goal, but unlikely. Instead, I think the
universities should integrate online stuff in addition to in classroom
lectures.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the university environment. Being surrounded by my
peers in the same field really helped. I learnt a lot just by hanging around
the various clubs. That absolutely cannot be replicated online.

~~~
simula67
It would be hard to do online courses for subjects that require a lot of
physical tools for teaching, or loads of physical activity. Some examples are
physics, mechanical engineering, computer hardware design, dancing etc.

But it might be useful promote online education more since it increases
accessibility and affordability.

> You have a direct connection to the professor and other students, which is
> essential for advanced material.

You can ask the student to write down their questions and mail the professor.
This way, a good professor can be shared by many more students.

>How would undergraduates get exposed to research in your system?

The professors can guide them to where interesting conversation happens on the
Internet, and they can get exposed to interesting research there.

>I forgot to mention the university environment. Being surrounded by my peers
in the same field really helped.

There is no law that this atmosphere of dense population of smart people
should be limited to universities.

By the way, I am agreeing to your central point, which is that online
education should be a complement and not a substitute to conventional
education.

------
xname
There is a nonsense propaganda behind these critique on standardized testing.

Test scores will always always always always always always always always
always always reflect socioeconomic disparities, because there is and will
always always always always always always always always always always be
socioeconomic difference in student abilities. It is insane to say
standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and minorities". Tests are
tests, they do not and should not care about students' socioeconomic
background. Whether universities should account for socioeconomic status of
applicants or not, that's their consideration, not test makers' consideration.

Of course standardized tests do not measure all aspects of a student, but they
never claim they do. This critique is also silly. The problem is, it is
extremely difficult to measure "traits such as optimism, curiosity,
resilience" of a person, especially when you want to use the results in
college admission. Current psychological instruments for those traits are not
developed for that purpose. No serious psychologist will suggest colleges to
use those psychological instruments in college admission.

Do no blame standardized testing for those silly reasons!

~~~
spamizbad
> It is insane to say standardized tests "punish disadvantaged students and
> minorities"

A test can be written with a bias that favors or punishes _any_ group. I don't
think its intentional, as it is quite difficult to create them without these
issues.

A simple example to show the point:

    
    
        Which of the following is not like the others:
        
        A) Chicken
        B) Moose
        C) Cow
        D) Pig
        E) Dog
    

Many people would answer A: A chicken is a bird and everything else is a
mammal.

But if you come from an agricultural background, in addition examining the
animals based on their Biological Kingdom, you might be tempted to say B,
Moose: It's the only animal that has no role on a farm. B is not an illogical
answer from that perspective, but within the context of the test it's likely
wrong.

When people say a test has a socioeconomic bias, they're saying a question can
become easier or harder depending on a student's economic background. The
question above is easy for most of us, but would probably be solved slower by
anyone who grew up on a farm.

~~~
xname
> When people say a test has a socioeconomic bias, they're saying a question
> can become easier or harder depending on a student's economic background.

That's not their argument.

However, actually the issue you mentioned has long been noticed by
psychologists / test makers. Experts in SAT / ACT know a lot about these
things. Please refer to Differential Item Functioning
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_item_functioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_item_functioning)

~~~
spamizbad
> Experts in SAT / ACT know a lot about these things.

Experts at ACT maybe. But didn't the SAT recently announce it's re-tooling
much of its test to address these issues?

~~~
barry-cotter
The new changes haven't been tested at all from what I've read. They're
dropping vocabulary tests, for example, which are astonishingly predictive.
From the media coverage it doesn't look like the College Board are as
interested in scholastic aptitude as plaudits for Doing the Right Thing™.

