Hacker News Reader

Comment by hammock | Hacker News Reader

> I don't buy the notion that tests do not test relevant skills. In my long career I've noticed a strong correlation between SAT scores and academic performance as well as job performance.

SAT tests intelligence (aptitude), not skills. Which is why it correlates with job performance, where intelligence can (over some time) matter as much or more than a starting point of relevant skills.

View on HN

I just checked, and the SAT math section covers algebra, trigonometry and statistics.

Look at this list:

  Quadratic equations and functions (vertex form, roots, discriminant)
  Polynomial operations and factoring
  Exponential functions and growth/decay
  Radical and rational expressions
  Function notation, composite and inverse functions
  Nonlinear graphs and their transformations

A genius student who had never been taught those subjects wouldn't even know what the symbols meant. A mediocre student who had studied SAT-style questions for weeks leading up to the test would likely outperform a high IQ student who last solved those types of problems over a year prior.

Standardized tests can be a great resource for assessing students, but they're not just testing for intelligence. Test-prep courses average increasing SAT scores by about 200 points. That's not because they're increasing the intelligence of the people taking them.

Somebody who goes to take a test on something they know that they know nothing about could be called many things, but genius is not one, even moreso when they're paying for the privilege of taking that test. What is on the SAT is no secret, so people are free to prepare as little or as much as they might like. If somebody can't be assed to prepare for such a critical test, then they're probably going to be the sort of person who can't be assed to do much of anything in life. And the internet has also largely relegated the inequities in access to training quite obsolete. You can get free high quality training materials on everything for free.

You've never met a smart high school student that didn't study? You've also never met someone who became more disciplined later in life?

There's a difference between not studying and just hand-waving away the SAT, which plays a huge role in things like college admittance. And the SAT isn't particularly hard, even back in the days when it was apparently significantly more challenging, for a clever kid. My prep was picking up some old book on it at Half Price Books and leaving it in the bathroom. Worked excellently!

Or they're a student who has to work a part-time job after school. Or they have a long commute. Or they have hours of practice for a competitive sport or extracurricular. Or they have to take care of their siblings, grandparent or sick parent. Or they were told by their parents and teachers that because they're smart and do well in school that they don't need to worry about studying. Or they know their parents can't afford an elite school anyway, so they know they just have to score well enough to get into a school with in-state tuition and noncompetitive admissions.

Two kids who both went to the same school, were told the same things about the importance of the SAT and dedicated equal time to study and preparation can probably say that the difference in their scores is indicative of differences in intelligence.

But any two random students? There are so many factors that could cause students to underperform their hypothetical max score if they had perfect conditions in the months leading up to the test and day of.

We're talking about the SAT, not the gaokao [1]. It's a relatively short test that you can take it whenever you want, you can even retake it if you want, however many times you want. There's minimal memorization required and it's mostly testing basic aptitude. But the overwhelming majority of people are of average aptitude, so the overwhelming majority of people will do "poorly" on the SAT when comparing themselves to outliers.

I don't understand the effort to try to eliminate the reality that innate ability exists. I think we should accept this and work to cultivate it. Just because somebody of average aptitude doesn't mean he might not excel in other ways. The world needs all sorts of people, and I think the ideal system would work to figure out and cultivate these talents in everybody.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaokao

I know a person who has a pretty modest ability, shall we say. But he still managed to become a multimillionaire as a young man.

There's plenty of time during school hours to study up on the math. My high school was deficient in math, everyone knew that, and I took math classes at the local community college to make up for it.

I never studied for tests in school, not for the SATs, either. I tried that in college, that did not work. The stress of the tests was pretty bad. I realized I had to study hard, and I did, and it was effective at reducing test anxiety.

"A mediocre student who had studied SAT-style questions for weeks leading up to the test would likely outperform a high IQ student who last solved those types of problems over a year prior."

That's why hard questions exist.

> A genius student who had never been taught those subjects wouldn't even know what the symbols meant.

This is pedantic. Take it to the logical next step. Words and letters are symbols too. How would someone who can’t read do on the SAT?

> A mediocre student who had studied SAT-style questions for weeks leading up to the test would likely outperform a high IQ student who last solved those types of problems over a year prior.

Would make an interesting experiment, if it hasn’t already been studied. I would put my money on the lapsed high IQ student though.

Hal Finney was famous at Caltech for skipping class, flipping through the textbook a couple hours before finals, and acing them.

But he was one in a million. I always felt like a moron around him. But Hal was also charismatic and everyone liked him, including myself.

I suspect Hal was a "skin job" alien.

> Test-prep courses average increasing SAT scores by about 200 points.

Perhaps because they finally bothered to learn the material. I am skeptical that "strategy" makes much of any difference.

Nothing's perfect, but the SAT tests do an adequate job.

I guess the question is: would you rather hire someone with poor SATs and god-tier Leetcoding skills or vice-versa?

I’d for sure take the high SAT scores. I think the SAT has more correlation with/is more predictive of work success than leetcode.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com