Hacker News Reader

Comment by MegaButts | Hacker News Reader

> Medical schools don’t take in 18 year olds in North America. They can have more in depth entrance exams since the people come in are more mature.

Why do you need to be more mature to take an exam? We're not talking about toddlers - many (most?) of them are legal adults.

View on HN

Legally yes, but if you’d had to interact with large numbers of those entering university for the first time you’d know they very much are not mentally adults yet.

All of which is beside the point since this conversation is focusing on the most prestigious universities around. Most universities and colleges in North America don’t need such exams since they already accept basically anyone who applies.

I still don't understand why taking an in-person exam is considered some difficult ordeal that we cannot expect younger people to endure. I have no idea what culture you come from that this is even a talking point, let alone a debate. It has never occurred to me ever in any context that having an exam being proctored means I need to be mature? I took many hours-long proctored exams long before I was 18. What does being mature have to do with having a literal adult in the room? If anything it requires less maturity because you're requiring oversight.

I truly do not understand your point at all.

I’m not arguing against proctored exams I’m arguing against:

> proctoring that includes checking biometrics, taking photographs of the individual for posterity, oral examinations, etc.

While I personally do actually believe test like that would be better than the kinds of exams being taken by students while at university I don’t see it as a realistic option for entrance exams. That sort of thing is simply not part of North American educational culture to a large degree. And for medical schools people practice and study and drill for months in order to prepare themselves for it.

Also, for most colleges and universities it simply makes no sense to introduce such an exam (or any at all) since they accept everyone who applies; they need to in order to remain financially viable.

Ah, now I see your point. I suspect the culture will change with the times assuming people want to give any credibility to universities moving forward. I remember how rampant cheating was where I went (decades ago) that I already put very little weight into degrees.

I hope so. Though the economic realities often take precedence. The university of Waterloo is one of their most prestigious universities, so they might be able to create more rigorous entry requirements (though that does bring up the question of “are you really teaching students to be competent or simply pre-filtering for only competent students”). But they can only do this if it doesn’t impact their ability to stay solvent.

> I don’t see it as a realistic option for entrance exams.

This isn't even an entrance exam. It's an extracurricular event for high school students that people primarily write for fun...

> since they accept everyone who applies;

This on the other hand doesn't describe Waterloo CS at all.

> extracurricular

A) I know this. B) If it gives you a significant benefit to admissions, it will quickly become a metric to be gamed.

> doesn’t describe Waterloo CS

Sure and I’ve said as much in another comment, but the person I replied to was making a broad comment about higher education in general.

I actually don't believe that CCC gives you significant benefit to admission in the faculty of math compared to other factors like ECs and actual Average.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com