Hacker News Reader

Comment by fridif | Hacker News Reader

Don't understand the hate for the SAT. Where I went to school, students would just beg their teachers for better grades and it literally worked.

I did average on my SAT compared to my ex-gf in college (top 30 US school) but I ran a 3.8 in college compared to her being a C student.

Doesn't matter anyway because none of the stuff I learned in college is used in my daily job as a java developer.

View on HN

Replacing the SAT by a "Holistic" process is a convenient way to impose a quota on some groups judged problematic. To directly quote the article:

"There is only one group of students who are “overrepresented,” to use the chilling language of social engineering, at the university: Asian Americans. Twelve percent of K–12 students are Asian or Pacific Islander, compared with 34 percent of UC undergraduates. Aligning enrollment with state demographics would require cutting the share of those students by almost two-thirds. It would mean getting right with contemporary concepts of anti-racism by reviving one of California’s most shameful traditions: clearing Asians out of desirable spaces.

[...]

The UC has an established history in this dirty art. In the 1960s, Asian enrollment at UC Berkeley was strong, and it soared through the ’70s. But in the ’80s, it plummeted mysteriously. Berkeley was investigated by the Department of Education, and in 1989, the chancellor apologized and pledged that this would never happen again."

All the best colleagues I've worked with aced the SAT and/or other standardized tests. I would hate to not be able to refer to them while interviewing job candidates.

Honestly, standardized test scores and some case study type questions would be sufficient to make a decision (along with 1 on 1 convos). I hope a decision like this opens a channel for smart people to get to employment without having to go to school or spend as much time in it.

Edit:

Some people are commenting that relying on scores from years ago can unfairly disadvantage people who have improved since then, and can generally be misleading. I agree with that.

There should be a robust ecosystem of aptitude tests that are generally accepted, are as unbiased (culturally) as possible, and that can be retaken at any time.

I think it's developing, as I've seen some examples of this in the hiring process.

You......ask what people got on the SATs in your job interview?

One place I worked at did, by policy (D. E. Shaw & Co.).

It was also the place with the densest collection of high-achieving, highly intelligent colleagues that I’ve ever experienced.

DE Shaw rejected me after I submitted my SATs (not once, but twice).

What even is the point of living if society deems people like me to be inherently inferior for life?

Almost no place has this (fairly pointless IMO) policy in place. How predictive is the SAT test I took when I was 16 to my performance on the job a decade later?

You can actually take the SAT at any age, so I'd say there's no reason to not try and get a high score.

You went to MIT so fairly predictive I think, as you just said it was the densest region of talent you’ve ever seen.

If you saw my resume you’d understand how hopeless it is for people like me. It’s depressing.

For my first jobs out of college, I listed my SAT scores.

EDIT: Don't understand the downvotes. I went to a top liberal arts college and they told us to, if it was over a certain number. It worked broadly speaking.

I did too. It specifically came up in interviews as a reason they brought me in.

Well, it is basically an IQ test.

In other words, an SAT score is most meaningful at the low end of the range?

Google used to ask college candidates (I was asked). I don't know if they still do.

> All the best colleagues I've worked with aced the SAT and/or other standardized tests

I did not do well on my SATs (1500/1600) - do you think there's any way to make up for this? Or am I supposed to be as unimpressive as I was at 17 forever?

I believe 1500/1600 is top 2%, so it's weird you'd consider that not "well" to me.

It’s not good enough to get into any top school, and top 2% is simply not good enough when it’s effectively the same as the top 20%.

It's enough to get into any state school, and many people in places like MIT/Harvard/other-here have scores around yours.

It's definitely in range [1]. You could also consider retaking it, or taking the GMAT, LSAT, or GRE.

[1]https://www.thoughtco.com/sat-scores-for-ivy-league-admissio...

That range includes triple legacies, Jared Kushner types and recruited athletes. I doubt it’s applicable to people like me.

What world do you living where people share or remember their high school test scores?

I've almost never heard of anyone caring about their SAT scores since freshman/sophomore year of college. The only people who still talk about them are the people who did really well on them complaining that they didn't help get them jobs once they graduated.

I can't point to something better than the SAT, but I can tell you what people don't like about it. SATs correlate with demographics in ways that conflict with the concept that merit is evenly distributed among student demographics.

One approach to prevent people from drawing racist inferences from standardized test scores or other statistics is to adopt the French policy of not collecting or keeping any race statistics. That would allow us to preserve meritocracy without promoting racism or depriving highly qualified applicants of the limited educational opportunities that will help them contribute the most to society.

That sounds good, but having no demographic stats is the opposite of sunlight. I don't believe it makes systemic racism go away, it just sweeps it under the rug.

Racism is a belief though. If we can remove a way that people come to the belief through statistical evidence we can make people believe it less. Keeping statistics can only work to provide evidence for the racists that all races are not of equal ability.

But like, I'm not a good soccer player at all and I don't harbor a belief that I should be placed on a soccer team to the exclusion of others who are much better (as opposed to just marginally better).

SAT is a standardized test of academic performance, where in there is an affirmed bias in what criteria you qualify as education worth testing. That bias is substantially amplified by dedicated preparation, which requires assets that are egalitarian.

This means wealthy families are substantially advantaged in SAT test performance. As a measure of preparation more than potential it may well serve as strong indicator future academic participation, but for all the wrong reasons. As such it can be used as a tool for exclusivity as a measure of anything.

To adequately test for performance biases aside divergent tests are better than conforming tests. The difference is the former tests for answer distribution, quantity, and validity where the later asserts correctness by asserting one answer against a single approved answer.

I don’t know why you were immediately downvoted. This is precisely why places are doing the whole holistic thing which isn’t some mysterious quota thing but giving applicants the ability to show off their talents in whatever their strengths are however they manifest. If you’re bad a standardized testing your app won’t immediately hit the trash. But if you are then by all means put your scores on your application.

I think it's an important point.

To kinda bounce of your comment and replies, no, I don't think the SAT is racist in any way.

However, I don't think it's a particular useful metric by itself.

I had a near perfect SAT score (sans all this private tutoring people are talking about), but was an absolutely terrible college student. Just wasn't for me, and despite trying twice, I never really got anywhere. I wish I hadn't spent the money. And I hope I didn't prevent someone who was truly more motivated an opportunity in doing so.

I don't understand this comment lol.

You say you don't understand the hate for SAT, but then proceed with an example of how you did better than your ex-gf in college despite doing presumably worse on the SAT then her?

My high school GPA was very bad, my SAT was "good enough to get in", and my university GPA was excellent, showing that I was now an adult and taking things seriously.

No SAT, no admission, I think would have been the case for me.

No. He's saying that the GPA in college doesn't matter, because he just asked his teacher to raise his grades, and that worked. Whereas his girlfriend was more intelligent by the SAT, but didn't realize this one simple trick.

what? I don't think that's what he's saying lol

The fact is that requiring the SAT leads to worse educational outcomes for Black and Latinx students. You can close your eyes to it all you want and say "but I don't see how that happens, they don't ask you skin color on the test!". That doesn't change the reality on the ground. We need a better system than the SAT as the gatekeeper to higher education. And yes, maybe UC doesn't have the perfect replacement. But at least they're trying.

The SAT is basically institutionalized racism. I think this has been well studied, from its origins until today. If you have the means and money you can get tutored test prep and do significantly better than you would otherwise.

Next on this list will be scholarships and admissions for elite sports. Rowing and gymnastics all favor the wealthy.

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/views/2020/08/17/h...

Maybe we need randomized admissions when kids qualify above a threshold...

You can also just hire tutors to help you with coursework. How is the SAT different in that aspect?

Yes yes, have them do it at your lake house during the derby my good sport. You can even take more time if you have your chef prepare you meals so you can study through!

What? You are missing the point completely.

The parent comment is saying that with the SAT removal, the only hard number the admissions officers have left to use is GPA. And GPA is just as gameable, if not even moreso than SAT scores, for kids with wealthy parents.

My response was in the privilege it takes to assume hiring a tutor is trivial / affordable for generic students, not that things can be gamed by wealthy parents.

> Maybe we need randomized admissions when kids qualify above a threshold...

That won't work.

The whole point is this is social engineering to ensure that demographics at universities match demographics at large.

Truly random admissions won't guarantee that especially when the applicant pool doesn't match the demographics at large to begin with.

The linked article may give you another point of view.

It didn't. The author seems to have a gut-felt conviction that there is no bias or damage in standardized testing or its subsequent use for university admissions.

The problem is that every approach to university admissions will be flawed.

Personally I think there should be a lottery system after a certain grade/extracurricular cut-off. The difference at a certain point between students is negligible and a lottery system would help alleviate some bias. Of course there's plenty of things wrong with this approach as well, you're never going to find something that pleases everyone.

I'm not sure of any state universities using a lottery, but some do automatically admit the top N% of students from every high school. For example, U of Texas admits the top top 6% or every high school.

Random stable matching would work.. rank your top 5 and they rank you.

Did you even read the article?

> How do I know all of this? Because unlike the regents, who enthusiastically voted to eliminate the tests for the first time in 2020, I did not ignore the findings of a 225-page report that was prepared for them at the request of the UC’s then-president, Janet Napolitano. This report[1], by the Academic Council’s Standardized Testing Task Force, was based on years of UC admissions data and was the product of a tremendous amount of work by a formidable team of experts in statistics, medicine, law, philosophy, neuroscience, education, anthropology, and admissions.

> The scholars determined that the obvious challenges faced by low-income Black and Latino students were poverty and poor K–12 education. And they found that the UC’s use of standardized tests did not amplify racial disparities. They agreed that the university should continue using test scores in admissions, but recommended that the UC begin developing its own test, which would be designed to meet the needs of both students and the institution.

[1] https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/...

The issue is not if testing "amplifies" racial disparity.

If it is the link in the chain which makes sure the disparity is carried on, especially to bigger amplifiers like college admission, then the decision to abandon it is clear.

Even if it is also a link in the chain which makes sure the disparity is broken?

You do realize that it is possible for it to be both right?

The question is whether or not it helps more than it hurts and no one seems to care that it helps the students from poorer areas distinguish themselves.

Problem is that they don't distinguish themselves at a high enough rate to make up for the disparity. It is much harder for them to do so.

what? did you RTFA? The author gives an argument based on concrete evidence that the SAT helps underrepresented minorities, and states there ALREADY is a pathway (that also lots of underrepresented minorities use) that avoids the SAT, the biggest problem being that statewide guidance counselors are not instructed on the existence of that pathway.

Intention is not evidence of success.

no, but actual flux of humans through those programs is. I feel like you still haven't read the article.

Hey man, totally agree. Instead let's just give IQ tests, because test prep doesn't help. Uhuh, whoops, those are racist too.

The SAT was an IQ test at one point. Anyway, other modern Western countries seem to have figured this out.

This is a bizarre canard that people keep running with. You can prep for the SAT but it adds 20-30 points at most. So mostly you can't prep for it. You certainly can't buy a high score.

College sports is a racket though for sure.

So personalized tutoring does nothing to improve your score? What an absurd suggestion.

That USED to be line line but it has since changed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/...

Coaching and tutoring has diminishing returns. Simply having done the practice test before the actual one would both significantly boost the score while reducing the anxiety. The tricks are not hard to learn, and practice tests are cheap to buy (or borrow from library). SAT is (was) probably the cheapest way to boost admission chance for a poor student compared to extracurricular, competitions, volunteering, etc. Those with money always have an advantage, but standardized test like SAT is probably the most egalitarian, as everyone has to take the tests by themselves in a controlled environment.

I didn't know Khan Academy was elitist, expensive or personalized.

No amount of expensive tutors is going to help a rich kid on the SAT unless they really do all the work.

Interesting I was 150 points of Stanford.. should’ve prepped.

It helps but you’re not gonna add 1000 points to your score if you didn’t pay attention in high school unless you’re basically attending a high school’s worth of test prep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com