I'm a bit confused - how is prepping and/or studying for the SAT "gaming the system"? I realize SATs are not a prefect reflection of learning, and I also recognize we can make the tests better and better -- but -- what better system is there to gauge learning across millions of people in a consistent manner? I'm honestly interested in some measure that is better, and isnt subject to corruption and whims of the few and stacked in favour of the 1%.
>> opaque rules has an advantage in that it's more difficult to game the system
You are right that with opaque rules, you cannot study your way into college anymore -- because it will depend on who you know, which charitable boards your parents are part of, which civic organizations you support, how good your sports videos are choreographed, how good an essay writer you hire for your college application, how genuine your weekend "service trip to country x" photos look, etc. When you get rid of tests and replace them with opaque measures that is the sort of gaming you end up with -- and that seems like a far worse type of gaming.
I'm comfortably middle class, studying way into a good college from below poverty. Prep books on weekends for 2yrs. I realize it is hard, it isn't fair -- but I dont want to replace that system where my children have to buy their way into college -- which is where we'll end up. I'm not wealthy enough to donate a building. I'm not connected enough to land on a charitable board with a college administrator. My kids have to study their way in.
Now...i'm hearing there is no way to study their way in. Rather, we need to figure out how to please each individual school's decision makers. Is that really what is more fair? Is that what the 99% want?
I'll concede my answer perhaps isn't completely applicable to SAT's which are, from what I understand, more of an IQ test. The equivalent exams in my country are on subjects that the student has studied for two years, but mainly involve getting the exam papers for the past three to five years and learning the patterns of questions, then rehearse the answers before the test. The marking system is designed to discourage anything other than this approach as the answers need to correspond to the schema the examiner has been given. I could pass a test in a subject I don't even have a basic understanding of so long as I follow the correct marking schema.
>> What groups, experiences, or attributes does it select for?
Thats the thing -- it becomes a way for admins to select whomever they want, using their own secret/opaque criteria which may well be biased, unfair, unjust.
In New York City, where I grew up, there has been a huge backlash against entrance examinations for high school. The official stance is they are discriminatory because people could prep for the exams, but a quick survey of the schools reveal "too many" poor Asians were getting in. People who could really afford prep schools were going to private schools and boarding schools. Poorer, but intensely driven students wanting to succeed, were prepping for years for the public school exams and "overrun" the schools.
The city chose only three high schools to focus for desegregation (interestingly, the three which most Asians). Original talks were to move to a "leadership based application system" -- as if people really have opportunities to demonstrate "leadership" at age 13 or 14. Leadership here is a euphemism for "being connected" or "wealthy."
To be fully frank, I admit the tests are not fair. A truly fair system would have as many good schools as students wanting to attend them. But we dont have that -- so instead we all compete for a handful of spots that poor students can afford while the truly wealthy buy their way into wherever they want. It isnt a perfect system. The test may not be perfect -- but perhaps then we should try to improve the test, or understand why some students can/cannot do well on the tests -- rather than creating a secret system where a few people get to decide which poor students get good schooling and who gets to remain stuck in the economic prison for another generation.
Disclosure: I studied for years for these exams, went to an application based NYC high school, and went from below poverty line to well into top 1% income in the span of 8yrs. The schools matter, enormously.
>> opaque rules has an advantage in that it's more difficult to game the system
You are right that with opaque rules, you cannot study your way into college anymore -- because it will depend on who you know, which charitable boards your parents are part of, which civic organizations you support, how good your sports videos are choreographed, how good an essay writer you hire for your college application, how genuine your weekend "service trip to country x" photos look, etc. When you get rid of tests and replace them with opaque measures that is the sort of gaming you end up with -- and that seems like a far worse type of gaming.
I'm comfortably middle class, studying way into a good college from below poverty. Prep books on weekends for 2yrs. I realize it is hard, it isn't fair -- but I dont want to replace that system where my children have to buy their way into college -- which is where we'll end up. I'm not wealthy enough to donate a building. I'm not connected enough to land on a charitable board with a college administrator. My kids have to study their way in.
Now...i'm hearing there is no way to study their way in. Rather, we need to figure out how to please each individual school's decision makers. Is that really what is more fair? Is that what the 99% want?