News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by quotemstr on Friday March 20, 2020 @01:57PM (#22639711)
> Anybody cheering the exclusion of some test or other, because it was a pain to study for in high school, is simply not noticing the frog-boiling secondary effects going on. Every bit of emphasis taken out of objective results mean more advantage for smooth talking, photogenic, well-connected people.

Absolutely right. Standardized testing become popular in the first place as an egalitarian measure, a way to combat inherited wealth and privilege. But wealth and privilege always want to propagate themselves to the next generation. Nowadays, we see rich parents paying crazy amounts of money to get their mediocre children into high-end schools, sometimes to the point of straight-up bribery [1]. They bribe crooked doctors into lying about their kids needing extra time on exams. After they get their mediocre kids into "top" schools, parents demand grade inflation. Once the kids graduate, they spend years supported by their parents in unpaid internships smarming their way into positions of power and influence unavailable to anyone who has to get paid to live. We have a thoroughly corrupt system that promotes stagnation, corruption, and incompetence.

Standardized testing is extremely inconvenient for the kind of person who uses these dirty tricks. It's hard to buy a university enough libraries to cover up your kid's 1100 on the SAT. This whole push to deprecate standardized testing is just corruption justified with twisty self-serving rhetoric about fake justice.

Only standardized testing should count toward university admission, because the only thing that matters is the competence of the next generation of decision-makers. We can only have a functioning society because good decisions get made, and status corruption damages society's ability to make good decisions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber...

Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by knzhou on Friday March 20, 2020 @02:10PM (#22639862)
The bribery scandal especially depresses me, because a lot of the colleges impacted had official bribery systems in place -- you're supposed to donate to the "Development Office" to get on the "Dean's List", or some other set of euphemisms. What the colleges were actually outraged about is that these middling-rich people tried to cheap out by paying a smaller bribe to some other office.
Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by ThrowawayR2 on Friday March 20, 2020 @03:54PM (#22641002)
If someone donates enough money for a lab or an entire building or something that can be used by students for decades as a means to get their underperforming kid in, yeah, that's technically a bribe but I'm kind of okay with that because the good so vastly outweighs the bad.
Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by grugagag on Friday March 20, 2020 @09:06PM (#22643356)
How many labs can an Uni build to accept all the silverspoons? A lot of money end up not in the common pool of resources but are pocketed in different ways by the staff and board. This myth is becoming trite already. The rich pay their way in and not necessarily for the education but for the credentials.
Re:MIT to no longer consider SAT subject tests in admissions... by lopmotr on Friday March 20, 2020 @02:30PM (#22640121)
There's something that doesn't quite make sense to me about this worry of wealthy people passing on their privileges to their children. Their children are different individuals who were effectively randomly chosen to be born into that situation. Why should it be some other child who was randomly chosen some other way instead? No matter who gets into Harvard, it's still the same number of people who somehow ended up with that privilege.

Is it simple jealousy of rich people? Or is it a worry that their kids aren't really the most capable so society won't function so well when they're eventually in charge? I'd say their kids probably are the most capable because elite universities get their funding and fame from successful graduates so they're incentivized to choose the people with greatest chance of success. Of a well-connected rich kid and a poorly-connected poor kid with the same SAT scores, the rich kid has better chance of future career success.