Half of the bribery scandal was cheating on SATs, so the more you emphasize test scores the more you elicit that kind of behavior.
The College Board and its executives make millions selling test prep materials and running a monopoly over US higher education. There's a good chance we're only beginning to discover the inherent corruption here.
I disagree. In India the IIT-JEE, for admissions into the IITs, are super hard, so hard that I can bet no one can repeat performance between years, thereby removing almost any chance that someone else taking the test would be able to provide any kind of performance guarantee.
In fact the problem with the US college admission system is that it's not at all objective, rather is completely subjective, thereby giving the admission committee a lot of leeway. Students, who are good in academics, are unnecessarily (biased opinion) forced to spend time on extra curricular activities, volunteering, sports etc. Not that they are not important, but I'm not convinced that they should be part of the admission criteria.
By making admissions dependent on some standardized test you will remove all, or at least most, of human involvement which leads to corruption.
There are people offering IIT jee scores(usually at really
expensive coaching institutes). hell the best IITJEE instructors take the test every year(to see the difficulty changes) and manage to get roughly the same high score everytime
The SAT/ACT is no longer standardized testing. All the determined parents abuse this. They find a sympathetic doctor to diagnose their kid with a nonsense learning disability, then that gets them double the time for the test or more. The test vendor isn't even allowed to disclose this inequality to the colleges; there was a lawsuit over that.
So you may play by the rules, but other students are getting twice the time to complete the test. Some students are more equal than other students.
This pretty much invalidates the whole concept of the test. Unless sanity prevails, the only way for test vendors to fix the problem would be to give an absurd amount of time to everybody.
> I would be extremely pissed if that criterion was applied.
It isn't a matter of "if"...that is the standard now, lower scores for certain demographics...that is why I don't put Asian on anything...as a mixed-race Filipino, I can pass as some kind of Latino which is what I now "identify" with since it helps me in nearly every case imaginable...it kind of sucks, but that is the world we now live in.
> that is the standard now, lower scores for certain demographics
I was talking about the opposite case: belonging to a class whose scores are artificially raised. If I can get excellent scores and get admitted by myself, but then everybody thinks that I got admitted due to my ethnic background, not due to my merits. Infuriating!
> it kind of sucks, but that is the world we now live in.
That certainly does not seem to be the case in Europe.
> I was talking about the opposite case: belonging to a class whose scores are artificially raised. If I can get excellent scores and get admitted by myself, but then everybody thinks that I got admitted due to my ethnic background, not due to my merits. Infuriating!
I think I follow you...that must not be fun...having everyone think you didn't deserve the spot you earned because of other undeserving "diversity applicants"
> That certainly does not seem to be the case in Europe
I was talking about the U.S. because the author of the article was talking about the U.S...I should have been more specific
In Korea and Japan, they use the one test system and have the highest suicide rate among high school students. It also makes their high school lives hell and their education system lackluster at best. I would advise caution.
I know people who got to uni with exceptionally high marks on their HSC and absolutely no problem solving skills to speak of. Doing well on an exam does not necessarily mean someone is more intelligent or capable, it means they were good at that exam.
That seems unfair to the students who apply for admission: if supply was high the previous year and low the current year, a student in the current year may not be admitted even if they demonstrated identical academic performance (assuming "academic performance" just means standardized test score here) as an admitted student from the previous year.
Sure, but this is just life isn’t it? A university decides to change the courses it offers, or the number of places offered within a course, just because things change. There also might be a new course offered this year which the student would not have had the opportunity to apply for last year.
What a terrible idea. Ignoring the fact that not everyone can take the test for economic or mental health reasons, and the fact that being able to prep for this test effectively skews in favor of wealthier folks, there are so many experiences that shape us. How does learning to overcome adversity because you had to survive homelessness show up in the SAT? How does being raised in a multicultural background? How does music? The arts? Your ability to engage people around you and spark imaginations? Or your inventiveness or compassion?
There are so many types of people I would want to be around in college who might not do great in a standardized test. I'd rather have a rich set of people around with different ideas and experiences than filter down to a single test result.
I still agree with his main point. I got an 800 in Math SAT I & II, and I am far from a Math genius. I don't think you need to implement the Putnam exam, but the SAT is structured to make it very difficult to discern a college player from a pro basically. More than 25% of MIT has an 800 SAT and 75% has at least 780 Math SAT.
Here’s a solution. Make college free for all. Anyone with a HS diploma can get in. But, you MUST attend the classes and do the work or you’re kicked out end of semester.
Totally based on merit. No biases on income or anything else.
Who pays the utility bills? Professor and administrative salaries? Is anyone allowed in just due to having a diploma? What keeps rampant cronyism and end of year cost splurges to keep high budget levels for the next year? Who sets the budget? How does enforcement work, government employees doing enforcing?
In short how do you pay for it given the already spiraling out of control costs of higher education?
Are you saying charging high tuition is responsible for making US universities better? Correlation alone does not equal causation. Is there any evidence for this statement?
I can't speak for Switzerland but all universities in England charge the same for UK students with nothing upfront. Sure they don't have space for everybody who meets the minimum but that's inevitable. There are no legacy admissions, athletic admissions, positive discrimination etc. Everybody goes through the same process.
If someone doesn't attend or do anything why does it mater. If they never show up then they take no space and they use no teacher time so they cost nothing to "educate"
This is effectively what Czech STEM universities do. The supply is way bigger than the demand and as such getting even to the "top" study program is trivial.
Not sure it's very effective seeing the 60%+ failure rates in the first year. These people could spend that year doing something they are more suitable for.
I selfishly love standardized testing because I have mostly done well on it. but SAT prep is ABSOLUTELY effective. I have my own personal anecdotal experience as well of that of my peers, but there are countless prep courses that boast impressive scores (unless they are lying through false advertising, but I believe it). The price of private tutoring and multiple rounds of simulated live exams is prohibitive and an absolute difference maker.
Effective for passing a test, maybe, but in my view 'passing tests' (that can be prepared for especially) is well down the list of 'important life skills.'
If a good SAT score is required to get you into a good college, and a good college is required to land a well-paying job, then passing the SAT with a high score is definitely an important life skill.
Yes. Case in point, the daughter of the lady in my town who ran the SAT and SSAT prep courses got all 800s. ALL 800s. She was smart, but not that smart. It is possible to be completely prepared for the SATs.
With respect, what in the world are you talking about? A casual search on the topic shows that 2 million people took the SAT last year. Of those 2 million, fewer than 500 achieved a perfect score.
Isn't the difficulty tuned to produce a histogram close to that of a normal distribution? Yes it's true that the contents of the test have changed (removing analogies, and then recently circa 2016 revamping the writing/reading sections to be more like the ACT) but fundamentally it doesn't really look that different to me. In fact if anything now the reading section relies more on understanding and analysis of passages rather than just memorizing words and definitions which if anything seems like slightly raising the bar.
Far from universally true. IQ tests like the SAT, GRE, GMAT etc. are all designed to be as close to ungameable as possible. There’s a limited amount they can do but the limit is very high indeed. The major, and unavoidable defect is the practice effect. The more you do something the better you get at it. But IQ tests are like running or weightlifting, there are beginner gains, there are tough gains that are ground out with a great deal of effort and there’s a limit you’re not going to surpass no matter how hard you try. O matter how many steroids I take or how hard I train I’m not going to beat Usain Bolt in the 100m. I’m probably not going to beat the average NHL player.
Goodhart’s Law is the opposite of true in quality control. What gets measured gets managed. Manufacturing defects in semiconductors, automobiles and I presume, most everything else have been trending down for decades. Businesses have KPIs for employees for a reason. Monomaniacal focus over a long period on one measure may not be the best idea, but it’s a great tool to have.
This is a great example of Goodhart's Law, though. If nobody studied for the SAT, it might (arguably) work fine as a measurement of collegiate potential. But because it became the metric for collegiate success, and because the "practice effect" means that practicing makes you do better on the test, many people study hard for it and greatly increase their likely score. The folks who don't study as much or as effectively for it for whatever reason will not do as well, as so you're left with a measurement of whether people studied for the SAT and not whether the test taker would be likely to succeed at college. So a good metric becomes a bad metric because it's chosen as the metric.
Not saying it isn't a problem but those better off have the resources to be educated better before in addition to factors like nutrition. Essentially the advantages aren't bias but a byproduct. The way to fix it of course is to raise the floor.
> Predicting Success in College: SAT® Studies of Classes Graduating Since 1980
> Studies predicting success in college for students graduating since 1980 are reviewed. SAT® scores and high school records were the most common predictors, but a few studies of other predictors are included. The review establishes that SAT scores and high school records predict academic performance, nonacademic accomplishments, leadership in college, and postcollege income. The combination of high school records and SAT scores is consistently the best predictor. Academic preadmission measures contribute substantially to predicting academic success (grades, honors, acceptance and graduation from graduate or professional school); contribute moderately to predicting outcomes with both academic and nonacademic components (persistence and graduation); and make a small but significant contribution to predicting college leadership, college accomplishments (artistic, athletic, business), and post-college income. A small number of studies of nonacademic predictors (high school accomplishments, attitudes, interests) establish their importance, particularly for predicting nonacademic success.
> SAT and ACT scores as predictors of undergraduate GPA scores of construction science and management students
> The result showed relatively strong positive correlation and predictive indices for both ACT and SAT. Thus, the hypothesis of higher UGPAs being related to higher ACT or SAT scores was supported. It was concluded that the admission committees might need to reexamine their admission requirements and/or look at ACT score more than SAT during admission.
There is no better predictor for future academic success than the SAT (or an equivalent IQ test - ACT/LSAT/GRE/GMAT).
The only other predictors that are good at predicting success are either undesirable (socioeconomic status of parents, for instance), or hard to standardize between applicants (school GPA).
> Allow people to challenge students on their score forcing them to retake the test, or randomly sample 1% for a retest.
You want to implement a challenge round for the SAT? Over 2 million kids took the SAT last year[1], many of them for the second or third time. Your proposal forces a kid to be required to retest if they're arbitrarily challenged by someone else. Or it uses a lottery to select tributes who will have to retake the exam again.
The SAT is an incredibly stressful part of an incredible stressful stage of life. Kids already take it several times to improve their scores. Your proposal adds even more elements which are out of parents' and kids' control that can potentially wreak havoc on their time and mental health. It's basically the nuclear option of attempts to improve the SAT.
My point was just there are obvious ways to prevent bribery. And considering the amount we burn on higher education, spending much more on tests and verification does seem like a much much better use of money.
To prevent bribery randomly sample 1% for a retest under much stricter security.
If you must, lower standards for protected classes to even out demographics.
Rich people can afford to burn their children’s childhood on the enrichment activities and “volunteer” work Harvard requires.
Standardized testing is by far the most fair way to do this. SAT prep is not that effective and besides SAT prep is now available online for free.