What's your take on MIT's stance?
our ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT 02 Our research shows this predictive validity holds even when you control for socioeconomic factors that correlate with testing.
MIT's conclusions should cause you to adjust your priors by a certain amount, but they should not cause you to completely flip by themselves -- particularly if you're not in the camp that thinks literally every decision MIT makes is correct by virtue of it being MIT.
If you wouldn't have looked at MIT's original plan of abandoning SAT scores as proof that they didn't matter, you probably also shouldn't look at them picking up SAT scores again as proof that they do matter. MIT's conclusions should lead you to update your priors by some amount dependent on how much you trust you currently have in the accuracy of college admissions processes when they assess student qualifications and outcomes.
----
My personal take on this is that I do absolutely buy that SAT scores could be a leveling factor between kids from different socioeconomic backgrounds and that they could be a better metric than GPA for determining admission. But of course, that's a pretty low barrier of entry to clear, GPA scores are probably close to meaningless when compared across schools. It seems to me that there's a lot of room here for SAT scores to be simultaneously mostly meaningless and at the same time also a reliably better predictor of school success than GPAs.
It's also important to ask what exactly MIT is measuring -- what does it mean by academic success and how much does that definition overlap with "fits in when placed in an environment optimized for people who are good at standardized testing?" And again, even if they are kind of circular or if they're measuring the wrong things, it's still plausible that they're more reliable than GPAs; it's a low bar to clear.
The same factors that lead to success for SATs can lead to further academic success.
I believe that MIT is probably right, in fact, I'm quite certain of it. Many people will drop out of university or perform poorly than their peers for socio-economic reasons, the person working while studying will probably do worse than the person who just studies.
MIT wants the most graduates and especially the most successful graduates, so the institution is right to do this, but I do still think it's more inhumane than I'm personally comfortable with -- but this is part of why I live in Europe where university students in general are seen as an investment by the state and not so much a business to be optimised.
They sure do. So does India. In fact, a lot of other countries rely on testing a whole lot more than the U.S. which has interviews, essays, sports, teacher recommendations, etc.
In this specific case, though, I don't think these two things are in conflict at all. By selecting the best candidates on the basis of merit, MIT is doing what's best for both MIT as well as the broader society.
We all benefit from living in a country that produces top-tier scientists and engineers, and MIT benefits from being a place that is known for producing top-tier scientists and engineers.
The point in question is whether the students in a lower socioeconomic situation even has a chance to get into MIT.
I was hoping someone had more insight into process or metrics on it.
Your own post has an implicit accusation that lower socioeconomic situations preclude high testing, which has all kinds of implications about the quality of education and living standards as a prior for acumen. I suppose my own bias shows in drawing that conclusion though. As Henry said though,
"If I had seven peasants, I could make seven lords. But if I had seven lords, I could not make ONE Holbein."