Hacker News Reader

Haha.. I think you have this backwards! If you think money can buy a good SAT score - go make some. Reality? Much easier to pay for a trip to "volunteer" in africa or at the local hospital, get on sports teams etc etc. If you have $$ being head of club X is a cakewalk! I had life changing SAT scores, and while prep helps, that slacker kid isn't getting 1600

Money can help you craft a heck of a lot of evidence of leadership.

I think we're agreeing here. I don't think money buys a good SAT score (I'm willing to read something that suggests otherwise). Wealthy elites do all of the above poverty tourism as well, but if they can redirect those funds to other "holistic" activities that have nothing to do with academic aptitude it's easier to hide the mediocrity in a "stellar resume".

It's 2400 now btw. There are three sections

No it is not. In 2005 it went from 1600 to 2400. In 2016 it went from 2400 back to 1600.

They got rid of the writing section in 2016, it's back to 1600 (with optional essay)

A few years ago, I was advising a group of undergraduates at a university and noticed that one was the President of their club. I thought that was cool and met another.. who was also President. Then a third.

It turns out, they called all their members "president" so they could all declare they were a "president of X" on their resume and could talk about leadership. Creative way to game the system for $0.

Words have meaning and that amounts to a lie en masse. Because the word "president" has a specific meaning in the English language, what you describe is not "creative", it's "collusion".

The fact that it works is an indictment of the system, not an indictment of the kids.

CVs of interns who went to private schools always have "president of the X club" on, for much the same reason. I don't know if they have multiple presidents per club, or if they just have masses of clubs, so everyone can be a president. I went to a state school - we didn't have any clubs!

> That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system in an attempt to figure out how best to influence their kid's probability of admission

It is far easier to influence extracurriculars and grades with money.

I went to an expensive private school. Nobody there (nor their parents) would have opposed eliminating the SAT and replacing it with essays and activities.

Yeah, I think people are misinterpreting my comment as suggesting elite parents would've been against this - far from it. They absolutely wanted this because now it's easier to hide middling academic aptitude from admissions boards at elite schools.

To be clear: Removing this test helps elite parents, and hurts those who can't afford spending money on "summer experiences" abroad or poverty tourism or whatever.

The most direct way to get admitted to an elite university is to have your parents be a major donor. This is not a secret, but explicit.

In the past it HAS been embarrassing if that admit came with a low or super low test score. So no question are the elites happy about this.

https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirm...

Might be why the test is getting eliminated. In my experience people support the SAT in proportion to how well they did on it. Since the test applies a uniform ranking and only the top 20% of takers are proud of their performance, the test does not lend itself to being popular.

I think you're underestimating how much of the inequality has been baked in by Junior year of High School. 16 years of living a life where parents and teachers nurture the students for maximum growth is going to be easily reflected in any way you want to measure aptitude against someone that grew up in a rough environment.

From the article it seems like the UC are going to develop their own test, that will further divide those with resources that can study and prep for multiple tests and those that cannot.

The issues with the diversity in the UC system are rooted in a much deeper level of inequality in society that probably cannot be fixed with these band aids.

Seems totally unrelated, unless you believe that academic aptitude is 100% environmental.

Empirical data shows those from upper middle class families tend to do better than those living near the poverty line. Seems pretty well documented at this point.

So? Empirical data also shows that if you’re 7’ tall you tend to be good at basketball.

Pointing out that people who are doing well now tend to do well in the future is not a useful observation. My original point in this discussion was that removing the tests actually hurts people who are not doing well now, since they have fewer opinions to game the system and having an empirical and objective test of their abilities is the best (and cheapest) opportunity to stand out.

>That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system [...]

Are you sure? Because I think the "elites" or very wealthy will be perfectly fine with removing objectivity. In fact, it helps them.

This hurts working class and poor applicants who don't fit the, shall we say, "background" that admissions offices of elite universities are looking for in 2020.

As time goes on I have less and less respect for credentials from elite institutions because of this.

I've edited my comment because I wasn't clear. I agree with you.

>This hurts working class and poor applicants who don't fit the, shall we say, "background" that admissions offices of elite universities are looking for in 2020.

Exactly this.

The test was a way out, especially for gifted kids from poor backgrounds.

> panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system

Speaking as a graduate of the UC system, I doubt "elites" are clamoring to get their kids into it.

Whatever the system is, parents with resources and the awareness to care about gaming the system will game it.

The fact that they made this change without an improved alternative, is particularly troubling.