I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university.
The people that go to these schools go on to be the upper-crust of society. They can think outside of the box and push the envelope of human knowledge.
Can other people do that without going to these schools? Sure. But these schools are looking for those people.
A lot of out of box thinking is conditioning to the environment. If you are taught not to have constraints your ability to think out of the box is much better.
The question to you is, how do you measure "needs to be more than that". If this isn't something that you can't quantify, it's just going to let administrators pick students to satisfy whatever the current cultural hot button issue is.
4.0 student who you interview and they come off as a Jerk, they are smart as hell or a 3.93 student who is passionate about learning, wants to be there, and is a humble person. Which do you want affecting your school's culture?
Which is ironic, because I am also generally against the idea of colleges basing their admissions solely on standardized tests. Those tests have their roots in the eugenics movement, have been shown to be deeply problematic and biased, and have completely failed to predict future success when you remove confounding factors.
> I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university.
I would argue that far more people who "think better than most" people come out of public schools than the "elite" schools. What the elite schools do very well is laundering the mediocrity of the upper class. (See "legacy admissions")
> The people that go to these schools go on to be the upper-crust of society. They can think outside of the box and push the envelope of human knowledge.
...
https://hbr.org/2020/09/graduates-of-elite-universities-get-...
> Our results offer some solace to the traditional recruiters. After controlling for age, gender, and the year of study, we found that graduates from higher-ranked universities performed better, but only nominally and only on some dimensions of performance. Specifically, the overall performance improved by only 1.9% for every 1,000 positions in the Webometrics global university rankings. When comparing the performance of candidates whose universities rank further apart — a graduate from a top university versus a “global average” university — the performance differential jumps to 19%.
> The 19% difference in performance between the top and the average seems significant, but keep in mind that this is for graduates from universities that are 10,000 university ranking positions apart. At a given organization, candidates are likely to be selected from within a much narrower pool, perhaps from universities whose rankings differ by a couple of hundred positions. In this more realistic case, the predicted difference in performance would be closer to 1%.
Keep in mind, this[1] is the ranking they are using. The top 10 includes public universities and omits several Ivy league "elite" universities.
It seems to me that measuring/estimating the scholastic ability/preparedness of a prospective student has value independent of whether that preparedness is correlated with some other variables (wealth, neighborhood, childhood nutrition, other socioeconomic markers).
“Are they prepared/do they have the aptitude to succeed here?” matters much more than the underlying reasons why they might or might not be prepared.
The research I've seen claims the opposite.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-arent-actually-mad-...
Yeah, kind of like SBF
> I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university.
I'd counter this and say the insistence on qualitative standards just opens the door for classist decision making. The second you allow people to introduce qualitative standards, it opens the door for discrimination
Tell me about how many people I know who went to a CISSP bootcamp, passed the test, and walk around not knowing shit? It's the same in a lot of universities too. Elite universities are looking for people who fit their image and who they believe are going somewhere in life. Universities, especially universities are looking for people that are going places. They are looking for people who will bring recognition, money, and fame back to the university.
So because bootcamps are an insufficient means of testing, standardized testing in general is inadequate? And not just this specific test in particular?
> Training someone to pass a test to get in is not the same as finding the right person to go there.
Only if the test is insufficient. "finding the right person" is just a racist, classist dog whistle from a group of people that feel entitled to the right to discriminate
You want to see a living example of this entitlement? Listen to the audio from the recent Supreme court verbal argument regarding the Harvard case. Specifically the "oboe players" comment. Juxtapose this with the historical racist and antisemitic discrimination and ask yourself whether Harvard should be trusted to "find the right person" in this sort of way
Most of the non-standardized test stuff is subjective and lends itself pretty directly to classist and racial prejudice. No one is arguing that standardized tests are the perfect way to test for aptitude, but the pro-standardized-test folks argue that the alternatives are significantly worse.
The essay system favors people who hire admissions consultants to write them, or who study the online guides about what types of essays get into Harvard. They also tend to chase sensational sob stories - the claims within those stories are never verified by admissions officers.
I can't find the study at the moment on google, but I recall some work asking to end essays in admissions packages since it discriminates against Black and Hispanic applicants who do not have the background resources to write appropriate admissions essays.
Maybe removing names and genders from the essays or similar entry requirements. There are ways to reduce bias without resorting to some kind of standardized test which only shows that they can pass a test.
Elite Universities are looking for people of character, that could be anyone from any walk of life. But it is self-serving, they are looking for people who will end up bringing money, recognition, and fame back to the school. They are looking for people who want to go there, who will go far in life and talk about how X university is where it all started.
I get that this is a difficult topic, and I want everyone in the world to be a lifelong learner, reader, and more.
But not everyone is built the same, that doesn't mean they won't go far in life. And I don't think recognizing that difference is racist or discriminatory. Not everyone will become a Harvard grad, the president, CEO of a company, etc. Some people are dealt a shittier hands in life and get less draws from the deck, we should work to fix that, but we shouldn't lump everyone into one basket.
How would you remove the biggest bias of money? People with money will throw it at gaming anything used by college admission process.
I think standardized testing is gaming the system, what you cannot game are transcripts of life long learners who value their education. If you remove all gendered language, names, mentions of race from essays you will hopefully be able to make your group decisions with less bias. The group should be diverse enough on multiple metrics.
Will it be perfect, no. But I think it's a better start than what we currently have.
What does it even mean?
Grades only hint that you gave a fuck about school.
But a math test is a pretty accurate test of someone's mathematical skill.
An essay about life is a much more dubious and lacks a quantitative rubric for comparing candidates.
In theory, squishy admissions processes exist to identify those students who have raw potential, but may not be identified by standardized test scores.
High school GPA and class rank are a more accurate indicator of success in postsecondary (but I could also argue that's really just a measure of how well you 'conform' to standard educational expectations early in life, not really how 'able to succeed' you are, but that's a different conversation).
Feel free to figure out better system.
Tests while not perfect, are in my opinion at least fair and relatively transparent.
>High school GPA and class rank are a more accurate indicator of success in postsecondary
jesus christ - GPA. I honestly don't know any more biased metric than GPA.
Even if GPA is better predictor of how hardworking you are, then I still don't care, there's too much bias in this metric.
Standarized tests are "pure", they aren't your average not 100% emotionally stable teacher
Harvard has. It involves making students write essays and considering all of their accomplishments. Harvard isn't just looking for the smartest people. They're not looking for the most academically successful. They are looking for people who will be powerful and wealthy. Is it fair that harvard admits people just because their parents have money and power? I guess not, but they're not trying to be fair. They're trying to admit people who will have money and power.
so I don't think that Harvard "figured it out"
I've been arguing that standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent.
Transparent, maybe. Fair? As noted above, test success is largely a measure of a student's access to resources and parental support. And the usual retort to that assertion is that study books are free at the library, to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?"
Anyways, the main discussion was the insane number of admin staff on campus. Admissions staff is only a small slice of that.
Internet and that's not very high bar. I've personally mostly used it when preparing for math exams.
>to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?"
Access to informations at the level of those tests isn't difficult.
What's being measured? how proficient you are at tested topics, how good your knowledge is.
>Transparent, maybe. Fair? As noted above, test success is largely a measure of a student's access
What's more fair then?
Those tests are as possibly fair as we can get.
Just accepting the fastest people might be the fairest way to win NCAA track meets, but that isn't their goal, so it's not how they run admissions.
For example with 0 or as little human factor as possible, without biases.
>Standardized tests have very little impact on ones likeliness to have a successful business or political career.
I'm not saying standardized tests are good proxy for being businessman or politician.
They're fair and transparent way that allows people to bootstrap themselves.
Even if you're poor ass, then you have access to Internet and can learn all those things good enough to get to the top schools.
So I'm using fair and transparent metrics proxying for learning capabilities, knowledge (in topics related to degrees) , etc, etc?
>I'm not saying Harvard needs to change.
>I've been arguing that standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent.
The discussion started in this context - I replied to this.
>The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel nice to say that everyone is equal, but not everyone has an equal chance.
I'm speaking more broadly - about the whole edu. sys.
Though I agree GPA is not better than standardized tests. It still is a very useful metric.
Standardized tests have difficiencies, but at least the scores are comparable.
Maybe for lulz/curiosity, definitely not when it comes to accepting somebody into college.
How to compare GPA of people who didn't gave a fuck about "lame"/"easy" subjects and outperformed at maths, physics, etc
with people who didn't outperform at e.g maths, physics, but were putting effort into the lame subjects?
But they do have predictive power for how well you'll do in college, independent of high school GPA and class rank.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-arent-actually-mad-...
I suspect if you apply to Harvard and can point to a film you made with your friends that placed well in some film festival or have some success with your music on Spotify or have done some stand up comedy or painted a mural in your city or something else that showcases talents that are more rare than high grades, you have a much better chance at being accepted. They want an interesting and diverse freshman class. To succeed there academically you really don't need perfect test scores. There really isn't any point in focusing solely on that.
I’m certain my daughter will have my challenges, and I am glad for me, her, and all like her we didn’t grow up in India.
You are being too harsh and dismissive. These high stake tests often are a good indicator of certain characteristics and aptitude in a student. These students work hard, study hard with a consistent methodology to understand the subject of the test. They know they are competing with others and the rewards are high. All this requires a disciplined personality and aptitude (there are different kinds of intelligence). And most of those who succeed in this actually do well in life.
Ofcourse, it doesn't mean that your criticisms against the current model isn't justified or without merit on some aspects, providing you judge it from the right perspective. For example, India is a developing country and our education system isn't looking to identify and groom the next genius. We don't have the resources for that. So it is currently aimed to create an educated working professional class from all sections of our society that can uplift the economy of the country by generating wealth and decrease the growing wealth gap between the rich and the poor (to create an egalitarian society). And what do any industry look for - a hard working, consistent performer, who has the capability to understand how a system / process works and can adapt to it well.
That is why indians, and asians in general, are known and respected for their work ethics around the world in most industries.
But yes, people like you and me would struggle in this system, because the system isn't designed to accommodate the needs of those who aren't "normal" / psychologically healthy. (Hopefully that will change with economical growth and development in education). Note though that this doesn't mean that students who fail to adapt to this system all necessarily end up as failures in life. This is where the social culture also comes into picture in many asian societies. The family and social network of person in the society all try to help them too, both in trying to get access to best education they can afford and in trying to professionally help someone. (A good example of this is how parents make sacrifices and pay for their kids education. And thanks to that, the majority of us with a degree enter the professional world debt-free. (If you are in the US, can you afford to pay for your daughter's education and will you?) It's not all black and white as you think ...
Reality is when I grew up standardized testing made or broke a person, and I couldn’t go to school. I was lucky in that I had always programmed and landed a great job at Netscape. But Netscape was one of the first that hired uneducated engineers in the history of computing. Had I been 5 years older my life would be much different. I later went back to college and graduated highest honors from UIUC CS, but found a side door into the program owing to my standardized testing failures blocking the normal route through. Given my performance above all other students in my class, my standardized test scores had no correlation to my ultimate academic performance.
Now there’s more focus on the total person and that’s both expensive, but I believe leads to overall better academic outcomes by selecting people individually for their ability to excel in the academic environment of the specific school.
But give the sheer scale of the population applying in India assessing each individual is obviously on the surface impractical. This isn’t an inditement of India or it’s people or it’s system. But it’s also a tragedy. The world is sadly full of those.
I would however hold my statement is still true if harsh. While high test scores may indicate an ability to work hard and ambition, low test scores don’t indicate the opposite. I would argue it’s more closely correlated to the ability to acquire funding for tutoring and a family without the need of your time to help the family. To your point my wife is from Southeast Asia and her family was extremely poor, but they had her siblings drop out of school and work to pay for her books and clothes and afford her time to study for the tests, which she passed top of her country. But her siblings paid for it with their future. I’m proud of her, but not of the system. Her siblings aren’t failures per se, they just never got an opportunity.
But if you have applicants >> slots and an inability to scale a more accurate measure, a capricious but difficult criteria works. But I wouldn’t be particularly proud of that.
Finally, I’d note that Asian society often doesn’t have much of a second chance path. My wife’s siblings even if they went back to school and were accepted wouldn’t be able to find jobs because they followed a non traditional path. This is sad, and I wonder how much faster their country would advance if they had a less rigid job path for their people. How many people are disenfranchised because they matured slower, experienced hardships or illness, or weren’t able to afford the costs of education yet? I’ll betcha is a very large number.
I forgot to add there's another aspect - fighting corruption. Since there are so few quality educational institutes, and the competition so high, introducing any other additional form of assessment (like based on essays or interviews) would invite criticism of corruption and prejudice (linguistic, religion and caste mostly in India). (And it is a fair criticism - in the US some colleges actually moved away from admission based on standardised testing because they wanted to limit number of Jews in their institute. In ancient India, quality education was limited to the upper caste only.). Common entrance exams are thus perceived as more fair to everyone.
> But Netscape was one of the first that hired uneducated engineers in the history of computing.
This was something I really admired about American businesses in the past, but feel it has changed a lot - they didn't mind hiring workers having proficient skills who are passionate about their work, even if they didn't have a degree. This has really changed now and I blame Asian American immigrants for this, especially indians who tend to look down on someone who don't have a degree or even tend to scrutinise which college they have a degree from before deciding whether to respect their professional skills (Indian Hindu Brahmins, most of whom now run the BigTech's, in particular tend to be worse about this attitude because they have to compete even harder due to affirmative action policies and thus tend to have a tunnel vision when it comes to judging people through their degrees).
(I do know that the IT industry has always leaned towards hiring qualified professionals because it is a relatively young field).
This also reminds me of someone's struggle in India - he had failed to clear a few subjects in his engineering (from an average indian college) and thus didn't get his degree in the usual 4 years. He cleared those subjects and finally got his degree after 2-3 years. But he had been working in the IT industry, without a degree, right after college. Here's the kicker - Indian companies refused to recognize his work experience (based on which pay negotiations are done) during the period he worked without a degree. So they would subtract the 2-3 years he had worked without a degree, and offer him less pay. This was even after he had worked hard to get additional certifications in the industry to make up for the lack of passing away from a "good" college. He found true professional respect based on his experience only in the USA.
> Finally, I’d note that Asian society often doesn’t have much of a second chance path.
That's is true, but money and social connections also play a great role here. Middle class and rich people have more options for second chances, than the poor. And what you described about your wife's family situation is indeed quite common - some of my classmates had brothers and sisters who couldn't afford a decent college education because they were poor, and instead chose to sacrifice and pay for their siblings education. But again, note that our social culture (unlike the west) lays a lot of emphasis on helping family member, and often, these educated siblings did contribute back financially (if they were decent individuals who didn't succumb to selfishness). One of my friend and classmate ensured that he paid for brother's kids education for the sacrifices his brother made for him.
Run standardized tests and admit based on actual knowledge and ability. The rest is bullshit.
Isn't that what India does, and isn't the system rife with cheaters?
Yes.
> and isn't the system rife with cheaters?
That's an orthogonal point. Even the American system is rife with cheaters, either explicit[1] or legalized cheating aka College Prep industry which helps you with everything including essays if you pay enough.
So again, what is the US achieving exactly?
And whatever the answer to that question is, it’s going to require a bloated admissions department to make it happen.
what? US has legalized cheating in so many ways (athletes, college preps, dean's lists, legacies...). People with enough resources and/or enough motivation will always find a way to get what they want. US gives them a paved road while in the East, they have to cheat. When they can't find a paved road, they cheat in the West as well.
I don't know you, but I'm going to guess the cultural problem is a problem of a culture not your own, and what happens in your culture is the series of isolated incidents.
I go to a pretty good American school which has a lot of foreigners going on visas, the majority being Indian and Chinese students. The group of Indian students in my under grad got caught cheating all together. They were just hanging out in discord giving each other answers.
In a lot of other countries it's seen as an "Us vs The Man" mentality. So if you are cheating or figure out how to take advantage of a system you are seen as beating "The Man or The System" and you are smarter than it. In a lot of Western counties, that is not the case.
No ? All of the high stakes entrance examinations CAT / JEE / NEET / Civil services are completely cheating free and the systems goes through great troubles to enforce it. I believe it is exactly the same for law schools, accountants and NDA (defense) exams. That about covers all of India's well regarded professions.
Cheating happens in courses once you're in College because of a general apathy towards what is being taught (sadly) and the knowledge that your grades don't matter for much.
Institutions like Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford produce leaders and entrepreneurs. India's top engineering colleges (IITs) are meanwhile ranked nowhere globally, and its top graduates dream of getting a cushy job at Google, nothing more.
There are a lot of problems with American universities, but the lack of entrance exams is a feature, not a bug.
I actually think standardized tests create more equality than other methods. The whole recommendation letter/essay/interview is an eyewash.
If that was actually the case then India wouldn't have a quota system where >50% of seats are reserved for certain castes and religions.
Edit: In a way, the standardized testing made that inequality apparent and harder to wave your with a very ambiguous policy on inclusion.
Why are they coming to American universities when IITs and IISC have GATE exam for post graduate courses and none of the ridiculous process for admission?
You are discounting Indian institutions, take a look at the Fortune 500 c suite list and tell me how many of them studied at IIT/IIM.
Investment is a key requirement for enterprise. You will be surprised to see the startup ecosystem now since the investment is flowing in.
I 100% agree with the asinine focus on cracking the exam and not anything else. But then the ROI is too good.
Do you mean copycat chumps getting bloated on Softbank money as example of startup innovation?
We will just ignore all the Indians working on letting us "google it".
Just like there is a little niche in information theory that I keep up on current research and I pretty much ignore research outside of China at this point. So many Americans just have their head up their ass they literally have no idea what is going on in the outside world.
You do realize that this is the same language that universities like Harvard use to discriminate against Asian Americans (and historically against Jewish people)?
Reading this and knowing that you're talking about South Asians in particular, this comment just comes off as stereotypical and racist
I'm not sure it's a good thing, mind you.
Says someone whose country brain-drains Indian innovators to do the actual work for which nepotistic grifters from Harvard take the credit!
btw. did you have an opportunity to study using those two "approaches"?
As if the innovation from silicon value has nothing to do with people born in India. What planet are we on again?