
Record number of colleges drop SAT/ACT admissions requirement - pseudolus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/18/record-number-colleges-drop-satact-admissions-requirement-amid-growing-disenchantment-with-standardized-tests/
======
freetime2
As someone who dealt with severe depression during high school, I feel like
the SATs really helped me out during college admissions time. Just getting out
of bed every day was a real struggle for me and as a result my attendance was
poor, my grades were spotty, and I didn’t have any formal extra curriculars I
could show off. But I did get the highest SAT scores in my class, and I feel
like that helped demonstrate that I had some raw potential even if it wasn’t
expressed in all the traditional ways.

It made my high school teachers and principal who might otherwise have written
me off pay more attention to me. This was helpful in terms of getting
recommendation letters, and also just being allowed to graduate despite a
substantial number of absences. It helped get me into a college with a decent
computer science program, and I met with much more success there than I had in
high school. The freedom and challenges of the college environment really
brought something out of me that high school hadn’t.

I think there are a lot of kids in my situation, who are smart but haven’t
really “figured it all out yet” in high school. Hopefully there are other ways
aside from standardized tests for them to demonstrate that they have
potential, and hopefully teachers and colleges are paying attention.

~~~
leetcrew
I do think this is an important take. colleges should avoid relying
excessively on a single measure of aptitude to evaluate applicants for this
reason. there are lots of bright kids who struggle in high school but really
blossom in college if they're given a chance.

that said, I was in a similar position to you in high school. I would always
get one of the highest scores in the class on tests/exams but usually get a
poor overall grade due to missed homework assignments. the teachers did
recognize that I was smart, but they concluded that the only possible
explanation for my poor performance was that I was just lazy and pretty much
wrote me off. in my my life at least, educators have been very willing to make
exception after exception for less bright students who seem to try hard but
will happily let smart underperformers fail without inquiring why.

~~~
csommers
They don’t need to inquire why when the vast majority of students fall into
the former category.

------
spamizbad
It's a cynical move to hit their enrollment numbers, sold to the public as
something to improve "diversity". But it's really just laying the groundwork
for schools to cope with life after the college boom is over.

For elite schools, it also makes it easier to provide cover for legacy and
donor admissions. You no longer have to explain how Keese James Shackleford IV
got into the the Shackleford school of dkljalfjaf while scoring just 950 on
his SAT.

~~~
alpineidyll3
Exactly. Colleges are in the business of marketing prestige, why lend
credibility to a test anyone can take to prove they are intelligent without
paying to attend for four years.

Ex professor here. Faculty have the power to end this bezzle if we admit
students are learning nothing and we'd all be better off with real jobs.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Ex professor here. Faculty have the power to end this bezzle if we admit
> students are learning nothing and we'd all be better off with real jobs.

I learned quite a lot in most of my classes in college; if your students
weren't maybe that's not an indictment of the education system so much as
their particular institution & instructors.

~~~
xyzzyz
I’ve also learned a lot in my degrees, and greatly enjoyed my time in the
university. However, I’ve only ever needed a tiny fraction of what I learned
there in my jobs at Google and Facebook.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _However, I’ve only ever needed a tiny fraction of what I learned there in
> my jobs at Google and Facebook._ "

That's interesting. What did you do at those positions?

I was at a different FAANG and used the hell out what I learned at university.
RF knowledge, embedded systems, creating physics simulations, and a bunch of
other stuff. Hell, I wish I'd learned more; some DSP knowledge would be hella
handy right about now.

If people are finding that they aren't using what they learned at university
in their career, it's the career that's the problem, not the university
education. The university is not responsible for the career path people choose
to take.

~~~
xyzzyz
I worked in Chrome for a while, but for past few years I worked in security
related areas, both at Google and at Facebook. You could make the case that
the mathematics I’ve learned helped me understand how RSA and ECC work, but
that has actually been mostly irrelevant in my experience, unlike things like
system design, vulnerability detection and management, fuzzing, reverse
engineering, which I have mostly learned on the job, not at university.

 _If people are finding that they aren 't using what they learned at
university in their career, it's the career that's the problem, not the
university education._

This is a bit myopic with respect to how normal people view university
education. For a typical person, the point of education is not to learn
things, but to obtain a degree. The point of degree is to get a good job. If
they manage to get a good job, that’s a success, and nothing more is expected
from the university education: people learn how to do the job mostly on the
job anyway. In this context, if people don’t use what they learned in the
university in the careers, that’s okay, what matters for normal people is the
career, not the learning. Of course, it might be different for you (it is
different for me, I love learning for learning’s sake), but that’s observably
not how most people approach life.

~~~
throwaway87378
> This is a bit myopic with respect to how normal people view university
> education. For a typical person, the point of education is not to learn
> things, but to obtain a degree. The point of degree is to get a good job. If
> they manage to get a good job, that’s a success, and nothing more is
> expected from the university education

The point of a university, however, is for people to learn things. The fact
that most people today treat universities as trade schools is unfortunate, and
IMO is having a negative effect on universities and people (like myself) that
went/are going there to actually learn something.

------
spicyusername
No disagreement that there are fundamental elements of our socio-economic
system that suppress certain groups of people, but this approach seems to be
tackling this problem from an extremely misguided direction.

The end goal is certainly to increase college enrollment among groups who have
historically been underrepresented, and removing all academic and skill
prerequisites from academic and skilled trades programs would certainly
increase enrollment numbers, but by totally devaluing those programs in the
process.

The enrollment and degree isn't what we should be trying to provide these
groups it's the underlying knowledge and skills so they are prepared for these
academic programs in the first place. This approach, though, is almost worse
than doing nothing because it's pretending to help when it's actually just
hurting everyone and serving the interests of the student loan industry in the
process.

There was a story in the news that broke recently of a high school doing
exactly what this is describing, sneaking disadvantaged kids into ivy league
colleges when they didn't have any of the skills or knowledge required for the
degree programs. Obviously it didn't go well.

You can find more information at

[https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672817734/the-reality-of-
t-m-...](https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672817734/the-reality-of-t-m-landry-
prep-a-school-in-small-town-louisiana)

There was also a really great Feakonomics podcast talking about America's math
curriculum and how the SAT is changing to focus on the right kinds of skills.

[http://freakonomics.com/podcast/math-
curriculum/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/math-curriculum/)

~~~
vntx
Agreed, this approach is misguided.

Removing standardized tests removes a useful metric admissions can use to
analyze applicants as part of a holistic process. Is it a perfect metric? No,
but the scores are good predictors for diligence which is crucial for college
success.

If you need to go to college to develop fundamental critical thinking skills,
then something is very, very wrong with your basic education system.

Wouldn’t it be more optimal to develop those skills from the beginning of
life, through the family, bolstered by a rigorous basic education BEFORE you
start college?

~~~
zaroth
The challenge is that the environment that is predisposed to produce teenagers
with a well rounded educational foundation and well developed critical
thinking and studying skills... tend to be affluent households that can afford
to move to areas with great schools, and send their kids to a constant stream
of extracurriculars.

That’s not to say it’s impossible to succeed in adverse conditions, but it’s
inane to pretend conditions are _on average_ not more adverse for certain
populations.

There’s a fundamental question of identity some colleges are struggling with.
To put it in exaggerated terms - do they want to be ivory tower institutes of
learning, or do they want to be a kaleidoscope of all of the next generation
who do not want to go on to trade work?

For people who want to go to college purely for rigorous academic study with
the brightest young academic minds, this is going to be a shift. The
populations will be formed less so based purely on that narrow selection
criteria.

It’s a progression which has been happening for decades, but as it seems in
many things, the rate of change is accelerating.

~~~
bsanr2
>For people who want to go to college purely for rigorous academic study with
the brightest young academic minds, this is going to be a shift.

Will it? The academic cheating scandal and what we know about legacy admission
tells us that many prestigious colleges very decidedly don't put pure academic
rigor above all else. I've heard tell that getting into Harvard and surviving
its social scene is harder than actually graduating from it. Anecdata, but of
all the big-name schools, I've only heard of a handful that deliver on their
"chew you up if you're not intellectually ready" reputations: MIT, CalArts,
several UCs... That's about it.

I'm of the opinion that the radical and purposeful shift we should be moving
towards is one of parity in rigor and support for all students passed a
certain level of demonstrated competence. Then, lottery.

~~~
tnecniv
You might not fail out of a lot of big name schools that like to keep their
graduation rate high, but you'll come out with a boatload of C's. You may have
a degree, but that's not a great outcome, and why go to school for four years
if you aren't learning effectively? I know that people say that it's a
networking opportunity, but most of my friends that got good jobs they were
happy with out of college were the ones that worked hard. The ones who just
floated by continued to float by.

~~~
bsanr2
Because the networking thing is real, and often supercedes one's grades or
demonstrated competence in a job market based primarily on networking.

------
kdmccormick
Have all the commenters here assuming that this is a misguided attempt that'll
end up letting any idiot into degree programs as long as they are labeled
"diverse" considered that maybe, _possibly_ standardized tests aren't
necessarily a good measure of one's ability to a learn well through a degree
program? That _maybe_ the ability to answer hundreds of multiple choice
questions and write five-paragraph essays in several high-pressure thirty
minute sprints _isn 't_ a prerequisite to success in a field? Are they not
bothered by the fact that these tests are surrounded by an industry of
expensive prep classes _specifically_ meant to teach you how to take a test?

This doesn't say _you can 't_ submit scores. Most still will. But it does say
that performance on one specific exam doesn't have to be a deciding factor,
which I see as a step forward.

~~~
xyzzyz
It is well known and universally acknowledged that SAT scores are highly
predictive of educational outcomes. See eg.
[https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/educators/higher-e...](https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/educators/higher-
ed/test-validity-design/validity-studies) . You can use other alternative
measures to predict educational success, but it’s important to get it right,
otherwise you’ll end up with low quality student body that isn’t able to learn
much and will drop out at high rates. Currently, high school GPA is also good
at predicting success, but it’s highly variable among schools. Should SAT
testing be abolished, parents who now pay for prepping will instead put their
children in schools where they are guaranteed high GPAs.

With all of its flaws, standardized testing is still the best of all available
alternatives for the purpose it’s used for. You need to acknowledge that no
matter what approach you use, it will be gamed.Thus, if you want to ensure
fairness, you need to choose one that’s hardest to game. Clearly, high school
GPA, essays and volunteering is much easier to game than SAT score.

~~~
fiftyfifty
That doesn't jive with the submitted article in the Washington Post:

"Research has consistently shown that ACT and SAT scores are strongly linked
to family income, mother’s education level and race. The College Board and ACT
Inc., which owns the ACT, say their tests are predictive of college success,
but (as with many education issues) there is also research showing otherwise."

There are studies that have shown rigor of high school course work is the
strongest predictor of college success:
[https://www.chronicle.com/article/Study-Says-Rigor-
of/8973](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Study-Says-Rigor-of/8973)

I think we can all agree that allowing two private companies to be the gate
keepers of higher education is a terrible idea.

~~~
xyzzyz
This WaPo quote is a good example of a common practice in modern journalism,
which is to write something which literally is true, but leaves the reader
with the wrong impression of the reality.

Yes, the rich people tend to do better on SAT. So? Why would anyone expect all
groups to do equally well on SAT? There is no problem with that. It would only
be a problem if SAT had different predictive validity between the rich and the
poor, that is, poor people with a given SAT score had different outcome in
predicted variable than the rich people. By and large it is not true.

> The College Board and ACT Inc., which owns the ACT, say their tests are
> predictive of college success, but (as with many education issues) there is
> also research showing otherwise."

Of course there is research showing otherwise. There always is. The real
question here, which WaPo is eliding, is what’s the preponderance of evidence,
and it overwhelmingly is on the side of high predictive validity of SAT. Don’t
believe me, see for yourself: go to Google Scholar and search for “sat
predictive validity”.

> There are studies that have shown rigor of high school course work is the
> strongest predictor of college success:
> [https://www.chronicle.com/article/Study-Says-Rigor-
> of/8973](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Study-Says-Rigor-of/8973)

It is marginally better than SAT, and it’s worse than GPA + SAT. I predict if
we dropped SAT, it’s predictive validity would fall significantly, because
it’s much easier to game GPA than to game SAT.

> I think we can all agree that allowing two private companies to be the gate
> keepers of higher education is a terrible idea.

Where I went to school, a government agency designs the test, of which all
students take the exact same version on exact same date. Universities by and
large exclusively consider the score in admissions. I think it’s superior
system, more fair and egalitarian.

------
lammalamma25
Ignoring the debate about its usefulness, I have a really hard time with the
line of thinking that minority/disadvantaged populations do poorly on the test
therefore it is discriminatory.

Everyone takes the same test. Preparing for it more (prep classes etc) will
make you do better. That is true, but what does a non discriminatory measure
look like then? Unless it has exactly proportional results then it can be
called discriminatory. What sort of test/measure can you create that will make
having resources to prepare for it more than someone else not matter? Would
that even be a good measure?

~~~
lordgrenville
One suggestion I like is to totally change the test format every year. This
would basically invalidate test prep and put everyone on the same footing.

~~~
panda88888
This would give the wealthy even more advantage because they have the time and
resources to throw at the test compared to the poor.

The test changes every year? No problem, just prep for the meta test like how
people prep for the FAANG interviews. Multiple formats? No problem, just spend
more time preparing for each format. Changing topics? No problem, just cover
as many topics as necessary.

I think the key is to see that the poor, by definition, have much less time
and money to tackle the problem. Therefore, to have a level playing field we
should design the test such that prep _may_ help, but there is a ceiling to
it, and I think the SAT is somewhat decent in this respect.

The optimal test strategy can be covered in one afternoon. The format is well
known and cheap study guides/sample tests are available pretty much
everywhere. If the test changes every year, imagine how much more difficult it
would be for a poor student to prep for it.

Edit: typo

~~~
danieltillett
If is it just resources how do the poor from certain cultures manage to do
well on the standardised tests while other cultures with upper middle class
incomes underperform? The problem is a lot more complex than just money.

~~~
panda88888
Agree with you that resources is just one factor and probably not the
dominating factor. I am arguing from the point of all things being equal, a
test that doesn’t change from year to year requires less time and resources to
prep for compared to a test that does change year to year. And for a poor
student, the former is probably more equitable than the latter.

As for standardized test scores and ethnicity/culture, that is a sensitive and
contentious topic that I prefer not get into.

------
joshmn
I wasn't the best student in high school (2.65GPA) but I did have excellent
standardized test scores. I feel like they really helped me in my college hunt
and were a significant factor into getting accepted into some of the schools I
did.

There are other people like myself who are just bad students for one reason or
another. A student's future prospects of education shouldn't be dependent on
just test scores or a GPA (what this is playing into) because those scores
aren't reflective of a student. It's reflective of them playing into the
system. The system rewards the typical student — or what we think of as a
typical student — and completely neglects the overall picture of the student.

Does my GPA reflect being sexually assaulted by a teacher? Having my best
friend die? Having an increasingly troubled home setting? Running out of my
medication routinely? Being bullied? No. My GPA simply indicates how I did in
the classroom.

A student has an array of attributes. Only one of those attributes is score.
Other attributes factor contribute and influence score. I realize it's hard to
quantify or quality non-tangibles into these attributes. But it needs to be
done for the betterment of future students.

~~~
fortran77
And it corrects for kids who go to fancy private schools where grades are
highly inflated (it's what parents are paying for, after all). The
standardized tests correct for inflated grades.

------
droithomme
The article says it's top ranked schools but then gives a list of a lot of
lesser known colleges, for profit mills like U. Phoenix, a whole bunch of
theological schools, Yeshivas and Talmud institutes, trade colleges, and
bottom tier state colleges (for example for new high school grads, CSU is test
optional but UC is not).

Yes there's also a handful of colleges that are known.

Most the ones listed it's understandable they don't mandate the tests and rely
on other criteria or are colleges that simply have very high acceptance rates.
Also most of them, like all the theology and trade schools, have never
mandated the tests so there's no real change there.

For academically rigorous schools just because the test is optional doesn't
mean you won't need a stellar application and recommendations in order to be
accepted if you choose not to send in test results. Also doesn't mean you
won't completely lose out on very helpful scholarships that have standardized
test cut off points.

------
ronnier
The GRE is increasingly being dropped as well. The motivation is racial
diversity.

For example at Brown:
[https://www.brown.edu/news/2019-10-03/gre](https://www.brown.edu/news/2019-10-03/gre)

The GRE is no longer needed for...

American Studies

Biotechnology

Biomedical Engineering

Chemistry

Comparative Literature

Computational Biology

Computer Science

Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

English

French Studies

German Studies

Hispanic Studies

Italian Studies

Mathematics

Modern Culture and Media

Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry

Molecular Pharmacology and Physiology

Neuroscience

Pathobiology

Portuguese and Brazilian Studies

Religious Studies

Slavic Studies

Theatre and Performance Studies

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _Computer Science_ "

While I like to rag on pseudo-diversity as much as the next person, the
Computer Science GRE was discontinued in 2013; see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Record_Examinations#G...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Record_Examinations#GRE_Subject_Tests).
Can't require something that no longer exists.

~~~
tnecniv
They are most likely referring to the regular GRE, not the subject test. Most
CS programs require the regular GRE.

------
zelly
How about a SAT test but instead of getting into a college you get a job.
Bring back aptitude testing for employment so we don't have to go through this
college rigmarole.

~~~
chongli
I don’t think employers want that. They like 4 year college degrees not only
because they demonstrate a modicum of intelligence but also because they
demonstrate conformity and conscientiousness, as well as the ability to delay
gratification. Employers like conformist workers who will put up with boring
work without complaint.

A person who does really well in high school and aces their SATs but refuses
to go to college sends a signal of nonconformity and a lack of
conscientiousness. This is the type of person who may be very smart and highly
skilled and also likely to get bored and leave for a different job.

~~~
zelly
So you agree that college has nothing to do with education or job preparation,
but rather some abstract general measure of character.

There are other ways to filter for people with these traits. Being smart in
general (or being conscientious enough to study hard for the knowledge-based
SATs) highly correlates to low time preference, so it may be redundant to do
any other tests. There are other ways to teach a job skill without spending 4
years to do it or making a competition out of getting access to learning. In
the last century before the college boom, big employers would expect to have
to train new employees.

Forcing young people to incur significant unforgivable debt to the education-
industrial complex just to prove they have some brain configuration seems
wasteful and cruel.

------
goatinaboat
I did the GMAT years ago and more than anything it is a test of how diligently
you prepare for it. Guess what, people who diligently prepare for things tend
to succeed at them! That’s Batman’s entire superpower! And those are the kind
of people who will succeed regardless of what universities they go to.

~~~
kthejoker2
Sounds like a really useful signal detector then.

~~~
TomVDB
The SAT and ACT are a fantastic detector to identify rich and motivated
parents who are willing to drop off their kid for 2 years at cramming centers
for weekly tutoring sessions and trial tests... and who are willing to pay
thousands for it.

I’ve been there, his scores went up significantly. I don’t think it made him
smarter in any way.

Combine that with our ability to buy a house in a very good school district
and send him to expensive summer camps in Tahoe where he can “develop
leadership skills” and “contribute to the community” and you have the perfect
applicant.

I’m proud parent, and I want my child to get all the opportunities, but the
cards were very heavily stacked in favor of him.

It’s all bullshit.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _The SAT and ACT are a fantastic detector to identify rich and motivated
> parents who are willing to drop off their kid for 2 years at cramming
> centers for weekly tutoring sessions and trial tests... and who are willing
> to pay thousands for it._ "

It was great for me, as a poor minority who was highly dedicated to education
and self-learning. Felt pretty good to do as well or better than the wealthier
kids despite not having access to a tenth of resources they did.

> " _It’s all bullshit._ "

Sure, if you're wealthy, you can find a bullshit way to get your kids into a
better school that they deserve. But this changes nothing; the wealthy will
find some new way to leverage their wealth to do the same and it will be back
to business as usual. Meanwhile, it shafts the poor but hard-working students
(including minorities!) who had a (semi-)objective way to show that they had
talent and dedication, all in the name of pretend "diversity".

That's the real bullshit here.

~~~
TomVDB
Congratulations on making it in.

The problem with these kind of discussions is that you can always find
examples where the system worked in ways that favored those who would in
general not benefit from it.

I think there is no question that rich people on average have a huge leg up
compared those who are not. That’s fundamentally broken.

The fact that you, as member of the non-rich, were able to use that to your
advantage doesn’t change that overall conclusion.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _I think there is no question that rich people on average have a huge leg
> up compared those who are not. That’s fundamentally broken._ "

We already know that it's fundamentally broken but we also know that this
action isn't going to change that. So what exactly are you trying to say here?

~~~
TomVDB
The way I read it, your initial comment seemed to defend the current system
for non-rich people since it allows a few non-rich to take advantage of it (at
the expense of other non-rich.)

------
dxbydt
Speaking as a current grad student, this whole anti-test movement in America
is a complete train wreck and will devastate the nation over the long term.
Short term, yes, lots of kids will get into lots of programs they are mentally
unequipped for. But once they get in, a few will get their shit together and
actually do well. Good for them! But the vast majority simply withdraw in the
3rd week before the W shows up on the transcript. The ones who don’t withdraw
and don’t get their shit together are the toxic bunch. That’s a significant
bunch. They are the ones who show up in labs & loudly say God I hate this
class so much! They are trying to build sympathy for their case that the
course is too hard. But perhaps it’s too hard because they are just not ready
for it - haven’t taken the prereqs, or not doing homework, or not mentally
mature. The SAT is supposed to test to precisely these things. But they’ve
bypassed that hurdle. So now the TAs and adjuncts have to gently break the
truth to them. That no, 7/0 + 5/0 is not 12/0\. No I won’t give you a point
for that because it’s the most obvious conclusion. I actually had to escort
the kid to the Professor because he threw a tantrum and said stats is supposed
to be easy, it’s mostly arithmetic!

But in the grand scheme of things, undergrads are mostly harmless. They don’t
produce research, they are just there to pass courses and join the economy as
worker bees. The really harmful cohort are grad students who get into grad
programs without passing the subject GREs. In my opinion, the Physics subject
GRE and the Math Subject GRE are probably the 2 toughest exam papers we have
in the USA. The vast majority of students cannot for the life of them pass it.
The ones who do pass tend to do incredibly well in the grad courses.
Especially the math GRE, which tests calculus, gradient, hessian, lagrange’s
theorem, greens theorem, stokes, very basic algebra like elementary group
theory, abelian & non commutative groups, cosets, fields & rings, basic number
theory, chinese remainder, basic analysis like cauchy schwartz and mean value
theorems. If you don’t know this material and get into grad school in some
math-heavy discipline like math/stat/applied math/... you are going to
struggle a lot. If it’s some lightweight discipline like OR/IE/Applied
Stats/CS/Eng, ok maybe you don’t need to know this shit. But then, you
shouldn’t also show up to graduate probability /statistics classes and then
raise your hand in middle of lecture and say you don’t know how to compute the
distribution of the ratio of 2 gaussians. This is exactly why have the Math
GRE, so you can take a few practice tests for free, realize you don’t know how
to integrate, and maybe work some calculus problems before you apply to grad
school, not after. End of rant.

------
6d6b73
Next: no grades needed to get BS, MA, PhD. and no attendance necessary. After
all some groups are at a disadvantage and they will not be able to attend the
classes.. While we're at it - why don't we have The Degree Lottery (tm), or
better yet, give degrees right after conception.

~~~
mhuffman
> Next: no grades needed to get BS, MA, PhD. and no attendance necessary.

"Soft-science" degrees from diploma-mill universities are already waaay ahead
of you!

~~~
goatinaboat
Or Masters degrees from U.K. ex-polys for any overseas student.

------
ryandrake
Sounds like they're just trying to get more people through the meat grinder.
Unpopular opinion on HN, but if I'm really honest, I didn't learn much about
my chosen profession (embedded software development) at college and felt it
was mostly a waste of four years. It was all about jumping through the right
hoops, getting the credential so I could pass through the Career Gatekeepers.

Half of the software engineering curriculum was too abstract and math-y, and
not practical enough. The other half that actually focused on programming were
way below my existing programming skill level at the time. I'm trying not to
make it a humblebrag, but there were about 3-4 of us who were self-taught and
already knew a few languages, who slept through the classes and got straight
As and the rest struggled to get hello_world.c to even compile before getting
their D and moving on to major in Business. There were some neat software-
related electives like compiler construction and one or two cool labs (build a
computer from a 68000 and some wires) but they were the exception.

The required electives and diversity indoctrination classes that were supposed
to make me well rounded (or whatever) were a waste of time. Nobody took them
seriously. I never got into the greek life or into college sports. So most of
it felt like high school minus the wood shop boneheads. "Get this game's level
over with, with minimal pain, so I can move on to the next level."

Only later did I find out that all of work life is about grinding through the
level so you can pass a career gatekeeper and get to the next level. So at
least college prepared me with that skill.

------
AtlasBarfed
Surprise, surprise, colleges in the business of printing diplomas (which are
about 90% of them at this point) make getting in easier, all while continuing
to skyrocket the tuition and indebt students.

Higher education is so bankrupt.

Maybe we should institute no-nonsense schools without all the fluff that do
have test requirements for entry.

------
SamReidHughes
This is because they want to enroll people too stupid to solve basic math
problems.

~~~
downrightmike
Yes and because that will at least get them one semester out of these kids,
which will probably need student loans. Even in state tuition will be many
thousands of dollars that will trap these kids.

~~~
travisoneill1
Then they will dumb down the curriculum even more.

------
privateSFacct
As someone doing hiring we have begun doing a very basic screening exam -
quick writing sample, some basic (EXTREMELY basic) applied work - 1st year
college quality is fine.

We have folks with degrees who can barely string together the most basic
concepts (literally out of the intro to X course) in their field.

I'm seriously curious how this is even possible. Yes - some are from degree
mill places - but even those have to be teaching something for the $$? Is it
the pressure of being tested that is throwing folks off? Do people forget what
they learned and are not really tested as they progress? We let them sit on
their own, use computer etc. If you do hiring do a 5-10 minute screening test
at some point - it can be eye opening.

~~~
Aperocky
Sounds like fizz buzz.

~~~
privateSFacct
I learned something new today - "FizzBuzz" is a basic programming task used
for screening.

We do stuff easier than this as a screen, but same idea, yes. We've now done
half as multiple choice to speed it up.

It usually takes 3 - 10 minutes range for most folks - so really light weight.

------
luord
> Vice [...] said "we don't need any more studies."

That's not shocking given who said it, but it makes it seem as if their
support of the initiative is rooted on anti-intellectualism.

My family was basically homeless when I was young, the only reason I could get
access to _quality_ higher education was the standardized tests we have here.

I'd like to see the data that one college used to decide that there hadn't
been any academic impact between students who submitted tests and those who
didn't.

------
reilly3000
When I read this article it struck me as a blatant PR battle between
FairTest.org and test vendors. This article ended up providing a more nuanced
view:

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/10/magazine/coll...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/10/magazine/college-
admissions-paul-tough.html)

------
yters
Standardized testing is a good predictor of someone's ability to do well in
our STEM oriented society. I score high on these things, but I've also found
I'm missing something important compared to people who don't score highly on
these things. I think our society is optimized to favor a certain kind of
intellectual talent, which certainly exists and is very useful, but does not
seem to be the only or even most important personal characteristic.

That being said, these tests should not be abolished, but we should also look
at other human characteristics that are beneficial.

------
Waterluvian
Maybe I'm wrong in one or many ways. But I'm reading a lot of people
suggesting it's for the dumbening. But I never took anything like the SATs in
Canada. I don't think we have that. And our universities seem to be doing
great.

Here in Ontario admissions goes by your top 6 "university level" high school
class grades. It helps prevent your future from being determined by a single
test, which to me seems like a terrible design.

~~~
aianus
No, it’s a terrible system that we have here in Ontario.

People kill themselves every year at Waterloo when they reach university and
discover their 98% grade in high school math was a lie and they are completely
unprepared and begin flunking out.

Simultaneously someone who goes to a good high school and learns real math but
only gets an 80% (which should be good!) is instead stressing out that they
won’t get into university because the published admissions average is 90%+. To
their credit Waterloo actually adjusts grades based on which high school you
go to, but now that is unfair to someone good who happens to go to a bad high
school.

Finally you have rich kids that go from getting 60% in day school to getting
98% in their “accredited” private high school night classes which are
economically incentivized to give the highest grades to their customers.

What a joke.

------
ulucs
This is a horrible move that will harm international students from no-name
schools more than it equalizes nationals.

------
mrfusion
What’s the alternative to these tests?

~~~
reilly3000
Grades and all of the other factors admissions people like to look at, like
volunteer work, extra-curricular activities, projects, essays, etc.

~~~
transcriptase
The issue I've observed is that those on the lower end of the socioeconomic
spectrum are put at a disadvantage when these are given higher weighting. The
teenager with wealthy parents can participate in (expensive) extracurricular
activities like team sports or take summers off to volunteer... not because
they're virtuous, but because someone along the way told them it's a good way
to pad their admissions applications.

Meanwhile the brilliant high-school student without parents who can afford
these things is less likely to participate in activities requiring investment
in equipment or logistics of getting to/from events. Instead of being able to
spend a summer volunteering on a hospital ship off the coast of Africa,
they're working retail to save up spending money for the year or reduce their
student loan burden.

------
wyxuan
I think there are a lot cynics here, but they should take the test before you
really understand why SAT/ACT is stupid as an admission req. Source: Took the
test

~~~
vinay427
I think the view of many of these supposed cynics is that the alternatives are
even less consistent and are more conducive to biases and corruption than a
standardized test, even if the test is not optimal in measuring someone's
academic abilities. No one is saying they're perfect.

I have taken both tests and while I clearly found them imperfect (as with
virtually every test), I would also say that they're far from useless or
"stupid" as a requirement.

------
gweinberg
Any schools going the other way and dropping grades from consideration?

------
jeromebaek
I got a 1000/1600 on my first try of the SAT. Then I went through a $6,000 SAT
summer camp, and got a 1600/1600\. I used this score to tutor privileged
children charging upwards to $100/hr. The conclusion, for me? The SAT has
become just another way for the privileged to incestuously perpetuate
privilege among themselves. I believe it's a great move to stop considering
these test scores.

~~~
michaelt
Some would say that's a sign the SAT should be improved to be a more accurate
prediction of college success, rather than that it should be done away with
all together.

I mean, if a graphics card review told you how many FPS you could expect on
Half Life 2, it might not show the differences between modern graphics cards.
But that's just a sign the reviewers should use a more modern game for their
benchmark, not that they should switch to reviewing whether the card's
designer sometimes volunteers at a soup kitchen or whether the maker spends a
lot of money on ads in the magazine.

------
skywhopper
Common sense should tell us that standardized tests like this are not fair
assessments of actual student academic potential. To the extent these tests
predict success in college, it's only because they are biased in the same ways
that most college support structures are biased. And once the "predictive"
tests are in place and accepted, they form a reinforcement loop with college
results, each proving the other "right".

But as our society has come to realize how deeply ingrained many systemic
biases are in our institutions, in order to break the cycle, you can't just
change the support structures at the college, but you have to change the
_external_ barriers that have grown up over the years in support of that old
system as well. And these standardized tests are a huge part of that. So I'm
glad to see this is changing.

~~~
mhuffman
> Common sense should tell us that standardized tests like this are not fair
> assessments of actual student academic potential.

Common sense should tell you no such thing!

Why wouldn't a test that measures a list of aptitudes (writing, comprehension,
logic, math, etc.) not correlate to some extent to academic success in a
liberal arts degree?

Literally the classes you have to take are related to writing, comprehension,
logic, math, etc!

> most college support structures are biased

I am not even sure what this is getting at!

If you are arguing that most of our colleges should not be centered on liberal
arts, then the alternative is centered on professional or technical degrees
... which, in most cases, lean even more heavily on math, logic, writing, and
comprehension!

Many universities have decided that they value diversity (ever how they define
that) higher than or equal to pure academic results. And that is fine for them
to make that choice, but it is silly to say that, "... common sense should
tell you that there is no correlation between people that are good at lots of
things and those same people being good at lots of things in college."

~~~
reilly3000
The tests have been gamed by a test prep industry that extracts money from
wealthy families. Colleges aren't admitting students based only on diversity.
They are taking kids with excellent grades, volunteer work, etc. and giving
them a closer look. It relies on the judgement of all of the student's high
school teachers, rather than a centralized corporate assessment.

Poor kids don't get second or third tries at tests that cost money to take.
Even the most brilliant students can have a bad day.

Colleges are held financial accountable to enroll students they can retain, so
they can collect a full-term tuition. They aren't going to risk giving a
valuable spot to a student that won't be able to perform well academically,
just because they are 'diverse'.

Professors would rather teach exceptional, motivated students from all walks
of life than the wealthy, entitled children that can afford to spend $5000 on
a test prep coach.

~~~
mhuffman
> The tests have been gamed by a test prep industry that extracts money from
> wealthy families.

No matter what you do, it will be gamed by money from wealthy families,
because successfully graduating from one of these schools opens doors!

For example, one thing that rich families are doing now is getting apartments
in "ghettos" so that certain institutions that use an address as a proxy for
"diversity" will include them.

Whenever you have something of value (like an Ivy League education), people
are going to compete for it.

Short of a literally random lottery that cannot be sold, there is zero way to
change that.

> Professors would rather teach exceptional, motivated students from all walks
> of life

Exceptional, motivated students have never had a problem getting into schools.
Universities have long adored the idea of having "church mouse" geniuses, but
it turns out that there are only so many of them. These self-motivated,
exceptional students never had to worry about the SAT, because they knocked it
out of the park ... without coaching!

------
jstewartmobile
It makes sense.

To uphold the value of their degrees, elite institutions are more interested
in selecting for real-life performance rather than paperwork-wizards. For some
fields--like mathematics--I'm sure those things track closely. For other
fields, not so much. Throwing the standardized tests away will probably spare
them from a great deal of admissions apologetics.

For less prestigious institutions, they like money--as evidenced by how low
their ACT/SAT admission cutoffs already are. This move is great for plausible
deniability when admitting illiterates for cash and prizes.

edit: would add that Gates and Zuckerberg are prime examples of pre-selecting
performance rather than creating it

