Yes, that's the plan. Ever notice that it's always upper middle class people bitching about the SAT's? That's because they're too poor for legacy / donor advantage, and they can't stand that poor people would have a fair shot through a standardized test.

Why would "they" argue against it?

"Socioeconomic status (SES) and SAT scores are positively correlated: Students from higher income backgrounds generally achieve higher scores, and “21.2% of variance in SAT scores is shared with SES, as measured here as a composite of mother’s education, father’s education, and parental income.” The researchers note that the “source of the SAT-SES relationship is likely due to some combination of educational opportunity, school quality, peer effects and other social factors.”

https://journalistsresource.org/economics/ses-socioeconomic-...

Presumably because high-SES folks can do even better if they remove standardized testing. I.e., it can be true that "high-SES correlates with high-SAT" but it does not follow that removing SAT requirements will result in more equal outcomes. It's very likely that SAT requirements level the playing field considerably if not completely. It's probably quite a lot of work (and cost of education) for those high-SES folks to get such high SAT scores, so by removing those SAT requirements they can be admitted more easily/cheaply.

Do you have any citations for this? I would think that removing SAT requirements would be done alongside an explicit push to admit more lower-SES students. Anecdotal but where I grew up it was never much work for students to get high SAT scores, most people I knew scored relatively high even before preparing.

> It's very likely that SAT requirements level the playing field considerably if not completely. It's probably quite a lot of work (and cost of education) for those high-SES folks to get such high SAT scores, so by removing those SAT requirements they can be admitted more easily/cheaply.

Those are the only claims I made, and no, I don't have citations for them. Mostly just intuition that the requirements existed to ensure merit rather than nepotism carried the day, so undoing those requirements is likely to have the inverse effect.

> Anecdotal but where I grew up it was never much work for students to get high SAT scores, most people I knew scored relatively high even before preparing.

"Getting into prestigious schools" high? If you're doing that effortlessly then you should bottle your local water and sell it, because there's something in it. :)

>"Getting into prestigious schools" high? If you're doing that effortlessly then you should bottle your local water and sell it, because there's something in it. :)

Yeah, I think it's pretty standard for certain Bay Area public high schools. If I remember correctly the school average was around 1470/1600 (though after prep). For reference Google says the average at Harvard is 1510. Probably has to do more with the parents than the water though.

Doesn't that corroborate the hypothesis that wealth begets higher SAT scores? Access to the quality education available in the Bay Area requires wealth (in general, you have to be pretty wealthy to live in the Bay Area--of course there are some exceptions which prove the rule)?

I'd say it's consistent with that hypothesis, but not that it corroborates it. An alternative hypothesis is that the Bay Area draws in smart folks (who are then wealthy, because Bay Area salaries are outrageous), and smart folks have smart kids. In other words, while wealth is correlated with higher SAT scores it doesn't "beget" them.

To tease that apart you'd need a counterfactual universe where those same Bay Area people weren't wealthy but still had kids. So, uh, good luck finding that...

One datapoint that at least gestures in "correlates" but doesn't "beget" is that half of the students at Stuyvesant High School, the most prestigious math/science school in New York with an admission based on a test akin to the SAT, are economically disadvantaged[0]. If wealth truly "begot" high scores on these tests, you'd probably not see that.

(It also demonstrates that Stuyvesant does a great job making the test accessible: there's free study materials, test times on weekdays and weekends, free shuttles to test site, etc. I wish that was the takeaway here with the SAT discussion: help low income folks prep for and take the test, don't eliminate the test altogether.)

[0] https://data.nysed.gov/enrollment.php?year=2018&instid=80000...

I guess the way I saw it was that the wealth itself begets high SAT scores (through the channel of paying for a good education, which would be invested in regardless of SAT requirements). Removing SAT requirements doesn’t help most wealthy students because they were likely going to do well on the SAT anyway, if anything it hurts them as it’s one advantage they have over others that wouldn’t be considered.

As anyone who worked through high school can attest, not having thr time or money for clubs, volunteering and activism looks poorly in admissions.

> Socioeconomic status (SES) and SAT scores are positively correlated.

Yes and socioeconomic status and being able to write a good essay, come accross as charming in an interview, etc. are even more correlated, which means that people with a high socioeconomic status still benefit from removing SAT scores.

Hard to take seriously any researchers who don't list genetic inheritance of intelligence as one of the likely causes of the SAT-SES relationship.

If they brought it up, they might not be employed as researchers for long. So your heuristic will end up selecting for cranks.

Better a crank scientist than a stable religious official. Because that's what it's called when there are possibilities you are not allowed to examine.

Are you aware of any research supporting genetic inheritance of intelligence. The psychologists I know have told me that there is very little evidence to support that.

See:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/neu.10160

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

* https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S183242741...

From that wiki article:

Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%. IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood.

> The authors acknowledge that an enriched social, educational, economic and intellectual environment can and does raise intelligence scores, but they insist that even when due allowance is made in terms of statistical comparisons of all other factors and measuring their relative weights, intelligence still seems to be strongly influenced by the genes of one's forebears.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligenc...

https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/1994/10/16/books/what-is-...

There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting genetic inheritability of intelligence. For a very simple example, we have twin studies that show a greater correlation in the intelligence of identical twins than fraternal twins. (The correlations of identical twins still aren't 100%, though - intelligence seems to include a random or "non-shared environment" component) Here's Wikipedia's take: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

You don't think that smart people are more likely to have smart children? Do you think that tall people tend to have tall children?

Why didn't you say so! I mean, if your psychologists said so then it must be

The alternative hypothesis is completely stupid. Chimps and humans have different intelligence. Are you saying that this isn't genetic?

I am barely paraphrasing, but they want admissions based on skin color. dark skinned people step to the front of the line while light skin people face lottery admissions.

Getting rid of the SAT serves two purposes:

1. Pulling up the drawbridge for smart kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, thus making room for less talented children of the wealthy.

2. Getting rid of objective, falsifiable assessments so they can select instead for ideology and party loyalty.

> select instead for ideology and party loyalty.

Already being done, but not yet at the student level: https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...

Not officially, at least. The kind of organization that requires a political pledge as condition of employment, was not bias-free the day before the requirement became official.

> source of the SAT-SES relationship is likely due to some combination of educational opportunity, school quality, peer effects and other social factors.

Parent's attitude toward education is also extremely important.

Is it normal to read books for fun? Is using "big words" acceptable at the dinner table? Is asking questions encouraged?

> Is it normal to read books for fun? Is using "big words" acceptable at the dinner table? Is asking questions encouraged?

My wife once taught a kid whose father kept brusquely "correcting" them any time they they used saw, as in the simple past tense of to see, correctly. The father insisted on seen, and not in a "that's how we talk here" way, but in a "that's how you talk period" way. I'm sure that wasn't the only way he was harming (or trying to harm, anyway) his kid's prospects.

Of course they were poor, too. :-(

"I seen a tree" is less ambiguous than "I saw a tree"

This is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read on hacker news.

So what do they stand to gain by eliminating standardized testing, if they also don't benefit from legacy advantage?

If you can't compete in intelligence, you want to compete in bullshit (essays / "activities") because you have a much better chance of winning that than someone who can't afford it.

Is the SAT or ACT a particularly good test of intelligence? Smarts, maybe, but I've met a lot of extremely intelligent, talented people who are not particularly "smart" by these measures.

You can practice and take classes that teach you how to do well on the SAT/ACT. No guarantee that you'll ace it but you'll do much better if you know the strategy behind a perfect score.

This is one of the reasons people with more resources do much better on these tests - getting test-specific tutoring, taking prep classes, etc. will significantly raise most people's scores. The tests are much closer to measuring "How good are you at taking the SAT/ACT?" than some kind of unbiased "How brilliant are you?" measurement.

As opposed to all those other academic tests where resources and preparation make no difference?

Once you are in school, perhaps with a scholarship, you have many more resources and time to prepare, to compete with classmates. That's the point - just getting into the school is filtering out students, even those that demonstrate achievement and commitment in other ways (i.e. grades).

I don't understand what that has to do with intelligence? Rote learning doesn't make you intelligent. Again, OP specifically said "if you can't complete on intelligence" and then went on to draw a link to "activities" being bullshit, and therefore a not a measure of intelligence. That makes no sense at all.

Well, then they're judged on their extra-curricular, volunteering and community activities, rather than their SATs.

I'm willing to bet poorer people don't do so well on those.

I'm willing to bet poorer people don't do as well on the SATs either.

Try participating in extra-curricular, volunteering and community activities while working a minimum wage job 20+ hours a week and going to school. Have you worked in a restaurant? It is fu##ing exhausting. At least testing tries to achieve standardized results. It is not perfect but it is better than the current alternative

But the question is , is it better ? From my experience the test all come down to if a student is lucky enough to have caring parents and test prep. Wouldn’t a better metric be to have that minimum wage job count as a extra curricular activity?

Why are you trying to improve the world rather than choose between two bad choices? /s

Applying data from other complex systems besides our own might not be easy, but surely other countries have some studies we could compare with our own. I'm going to go look. Hope you're having a nice day.

My wife is from a fairly poor background and had few advantages growing up, but her country rigourously uses standardised testing for university admissions. She didn't have any extra curriculars or after school activities to brag about in her personal essay, but she aced the standardised test and got into the best university in her country and now she has a successful career and lives a lifestyle far more affluent than anything her parents could have dreamed of. Without standardised testing she wouldn't have had a chance.

The drive to eliminate standardised testing is insane, and it can only hurt minorities and the already-disadvantaged, to the benefit of the elite. But then that's the whole point.

Without SATs, upper income parents can put their kids in private schools with inflated grades and pay top dollar for high-end extracurriculars, sports and music coaches, etc.

While I won't get into whether the SATs also "discriminate" in some way against students who are disadvantaged by poverty, etc., eliminating the SAT won't solve the problem. It will just make things worse! They are, for all their problems, a great equalizer.

It's my understanding that, at least for elite private college admissions, the extremely high quality of college admissions counsellors at decent-or-better prep high schools is a major advantage. They know admissions officers by name at several schools, they know which rules are firm and must be followed and which can be bent or ignored to the applicant's advantage, they write excellent recommendation letters, they give highly tailored and accurate advice on getting into specific schools, the do a good job of focusing their and the students' efforts on schools they actually do have a good chance of getting in to (and also not aiming too low) and ruling out long-shots early to improve chances (because more, better-focused effort) at the remaining options, that kind of thing.

Probably less of a factor at (most) state schools, though.

It's much worse than that - there is whole industry around college admissions consulting. Why depend on your high-school counselor when you can hire an expert? In the worst cases the expert even helps students effectively pre-plan their whole high school experience to increase students' chances of getting in to elite schools.

In my country, universities don't compare school grades apples-to-apples. Usually if a school gives out inflated grades, that is taken into consideration.

Entrance by subjective determination. Might as well make it a lottery. Apply, get ticket, random number generator makes selection.

If this were clearly a bad thing, wouldn't the schools that don't do this produce much higher quality graduates?

Honestly, I have no idea. I think everyone is seeking signal when a lot of life is luck. Smart people will overcome except when they can’t (smart people fail despite their best efforts all the time) and those who might be unable to achieve (whether because of lack of intelligence or because of life circumstances) might still stumble into success. It’s a crapshoot, but pulling levers makes everyone look like they’re trying to fix whatever they want to fix.

We’re optimizing for the wrong problems (selective admissions for limited slots), versus working towards universal access to high quality instruction regardless of location.

You make it sound like it's not something that should be fixed. Any alternative ways of enabling lower-middle class kids with fewer resources to achieve opportunities at success?

Universal access (free) to community colleges, remote learning MOOCs from those top in their fields. Commodify higher education and distribute widely, don’t reward artificial scarcity.

Existing colleges do not have incentives to do this. They are incentivized to protect the value of their brand and their institution, and to preserve scarcity and gated access to credentials.

Except Colorado just banned legacy admissions and dropped their SAT/ACT requirement.

Someone will be making a subjective determination for each student based on something that isn’t a test score or legacy attribute (“feels”, their “story”, whatever you want to call it). Not exactly universal access imho (although I agree legacy should’ve never been a deciding factor).

are there schools that do random admission to compare to?

The argument is that dropping SAT/ACT requirements is bad for the school. So if that were actually true, then there should be data showing schools that dropped the requirement being worse off than schools that didn't.

What does 'bad for the school' mean? As long as they continue to rake in the cash from tuition/sports/grants and can keep funding their ever-growing bureaucracies, will they care if educational standards have cratered? The evidence suggests that they don't.

If it were purely about money, they would not be axing legacy admissions.

The legacy kids will all still be admitted. The more vague and subjective the admissions criteria, the easier it is to shoo-in the rich kids and pretend it's about anything other than money. No wonder they're getting rid of the SAT.

> Might as well make it a lottery. Apply, get ticket, random number generator makes selection.

Why not? A lottery could still have the most basic requirements for entry but beyond that what makes you think anyone's qualification system would beat random chance?

It makes it really easy to accidentally favor someone because you happen to know their pop.

Extracurriculars and essays.

I suppose poor people can't write essays? And if the argument is "wealthier students can afford help for writing essays" then the same could be said of the SATs too.

Essays for admission are never (at least when I went through the system) done under observation - they're take home assignments which makes them really easy to game.

Interviews by alumni honestly seems like a pretty good evaluation metric - it is quite susceptible to legacy favorship though.

Think the problem is more with extracurricular activities. If you are well off, it easier to let your kid go to piano lessons, do some volunteer work, join a social mission to Africa during summers, etc.

> and they can't stand that poor people would have a fair shot through a standardized test.

That's quite the accusation. Citation needed.

Same for

> it's always upper middle class people bitching about the SAT's

in the first place. This is a mainstream reddit tier comment.

It’s not quite fair.

SAT scores are strongly correlated to your parent’s income level.

Well yes, aptitude generally correlates to one's ability ability to provide value that demands more money. But that doesn't mean it's unfair.

If you're white with English being your first and only language.

Two high income parents probably both went to college. This alone will set their kids up for success due to genetics and educational values

This is mediated by the fact that SAT basically measures g, g is heritable, and g predicts income level. It does not imply SAT unfairly favors rich people.

Does that mean minorities inherited lower aptitude?

The modern argument is that SAT and ACT tests discriminate against minorities. The reasoning is that minorities score lower because of socioeconomic factors.

Because minorities may not have English as their first language.

What about Asians? Are they disadvantaged by their native language? What kind of effect sizes are we talking about here?

Which Asians are you talking about?

Vietnamese Americans that have much lower educational attainment rates than whites?

Or international students from China that in recent decades comprise primarily of multi-millionaire families? If you're genuinely concerned about effect sizes, China has a billion people. If you had any cultural awareness about international students from Asia, Chinese students who attend undergrad in America did not score well enough to get into an elite university in China.

> If you're genuinely concerned about effect sizes, China has a billion people.

> If you had any cultural awareness about international students from Asia, Chinese students who attend undergrad in America did not score well enough to get into an elite university in China.

Are you trying to ballpark the effect size of wealth, and are you arguing that wealth is the explanation for why Asians do well despite linguistic differences?

https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-h...

I mean, I notice you're not talking about linguistic differences anymore, and just about (1) wealth and (2) the fact that Chinese students coming to the US are rejects from Chinese elite universities.

Also, are we talking about race or nationality? "Asian" is a racial classification, as is "black" or "Hispanic". And then you're comparing Vietnamese to whites? What kind of argument do you think you're building here?

What kind of international clarity do you think you have with regards to Asian Americans?

You're arguing that Asians are not disadvantaged because of English is their second language. You're reiterating the model minority narrative. That is why I am drilling down the demographic because you are being toxic by bucketing all Asians together.

What we see from SAT results may be results. What's not obvious is whether the students had to study more to attain the same results. In Asia, grade school students spend much more time doing academic work than in the states. Sure, the international Asian student can read about Benjamin Franklin and other American cultural elements to be on the same playing field with an American, while the American can go hangout with their friends during this same time. Does that mean that the SAT is fair if these students receive the same score?

> Also, are you trying to ballpark the effect size of wealth, and saying that wealth is the explanation for why Asians do well despite linguistic differences?

The demographic of East Asians who come to America are from wealthier and more affluent background. When you're looking at averages, it does not include the general Chinese population. Additionally, to attain a visa and stay in America, salary data selects for people in professional fields. If you want to point to income as a measure of "succeeding", you have to drill-down into demographics and whether they are filled with high-skilled workers versus other labor.

> I mean, I notice you're not talking about linguistic differences anymore, and just about (1) wealth and (2) the fact that Chinese students coming to the US are rejects from Chinese elite universities.

I am saying the say Chinese international students in America are from a very specific socioeconomic background and educational attainment. This is wildly different from certain Asian American groups. This is not relevant to my original argument, but I pointed this out because you bucketed all Asian people together. It's toxic and ignorant, that is why I am educating you.

> What kind of international clarity do you think you have with regards to Asian Americans?

What does "international clarity" even mean ? I don't know what you're looking for.

> If you had any cultural awareness about international students from Asia, Chinese students who attend undergrad in America did not score well enough to get into an elite university in China.

You're offering your cultural awareness about international students, and implying that I might not have any. I suppose this prose issues from your conversational instincts.

I offer data to anchor discussion for effect sizes, and so far you're building your own pet theory from scratch, as if the discussion just began here! And you're building your own little causal story (with implied effect sizes) about why metrics collected in the US look the way they do.

I'm putting Asians into a bucket because that's how bureaucratic data collection works in the US! If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.

Meanwhile you are making awful, awful accusations about whether I am supporting "model minority" arguments, and whether I'm being toxic by grouping Asians together.

> You're offering your cultural awareness about international students, and implying that I might not have any. I suppose this prose issues from your conversational instincts.

Yes. When you start out with "What about Asians?" alluding to the fact that Asians as a whole fare better on the SATs. I am aware of that, what I am questioning is whether given an native-English speaking American vs anyone with English as their second language, where if they work the same amount, would achieve the same results on the SAT.

> I'm putting Asians into a bucket because that's how bureaucratic data collection works in the US! If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.

We are talking about the SAT's language and cultural biases here. That is independent of whether the SAT wants to group people as Asian or Not. Then there is college application process which is a separate conversion. My question is whether a minority has to work harder to attain the same results as an native-English speaking American. Whether certain buckets as defined by bureaucratic data collection processes score better and why that is the case is not my original point

> If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.

Yes, official sources do not because there are political agendas and initiatives to bucket people into races. The fact that you think I am making up fantasy data about the "model minority" MYTH is exactly why I took a tangent from my original argument

> This is not relevant to my original argument, but I pointed this out because you bucketed all Asian people together. It's toxic and ignorant, that is why I am educating you.

> Yes, official sources do not because there is a political convenience to group all Asians together.

Really, the arrogance and rudeness is outstanding here, I have to wonder whether you are talking about your own toxicity and ignorance.

Your concept of illumination is to offer pet analysis and pet causal theories, and imaginary drill-downs into the data which don't exist! You are engaging in theory-crafting as if the conversation just began here, today.

American data collection culture, including academia and government, groups Asians together. You are making your own fantasy data, and making awful accusations based on your personal fantasies of what people are doing.

I'm talking about effect sizes, and not from the basis of my own self-proclaimed international awareness.

Observe for yourself how many replies this thread can go before you offer any semblance of something that isn't your own pet analysis.

> American data collection culture

And that can't be challenged?

In some dictatorships, the government can claim 95% of the election votes went to the incumbent.

The US unemployment rate published by the Bureau of Labor does not reflect the true unemployment rate.

The Three-fifths Compromise considered certain people only worth 3/5th of a person. Government defined metrics aren't a scientific / objective measure of the physical or moral world.

> pet analysis and pet causal theories, and imaginary drill-downs into the data which don't exist! ... You are making your own fantasy data

Let me know if you get a 404 error

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/chart/educational-...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/these-groups-of-asian...

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/524571669...

This is what TOEFL is for

The reading passages include cultural elements from history and social sciences that are Western / US centric. Compared to American students, I expect that Chinese student would have volumes more knowledge on Chinese literature and European students more knowledge on the renaissance. Is it a measure of aptitude that Americans know more about the story of Benjamin Franklin flying a kite ( that was literally my SAT question ) ? Even without direct exposure in school, it is embedded throughout our society and media.

Additionally, you presume all people whose first language is not English is an international student. If that was the case, American public schools would not have ESL courses. Then there are natural born American students whose first language is English but with ethnic or regional variations. Those students may have a much more comprehensive lexicon from Urban Dictionary than the SAT developers, but the SAT developers cannot avoid projecting the set of vocabulary from their own middle-class upbringing thru academia. It would be to entertaining to see the SAT include "deadass" on the vocabulary item when every New Yorker knows the term and, with the help of meme culture, youth on the West Coast knows it too. To the point of academia, the ethnic distribution of academia is not representative of the general population. Finally, this expectation of English and normalized American cultural knowledge involves the forced assimilation and white-washing of indigenous Americans.

Its amazing how you simply assume my background with your post.

I am one of those immigrant children who was born in the US and speaks English as a second language, I was in ESL until the 4th grade until my parents thought that I was at minimum decent enough at English to figure out a way to ask for help if I got lost.

We were not rich, we had very little money

I grew up in my formative years in the inner city with mainly immigrant families.

In high school, i had many acquaintances who were studying for TOEFL. I don't really need someone explaining to me what taking these exams are like.

I studied for the SATs since the moment I could express ideas in English, and had nothing else to do at home because my parents were working, and in the 7th grade got a 1160/1600 on the SATs.

I have multiple friends who got into university through the TOEFL.

It is absolutely infuriating that the woke left wants to remove agency from experiences like mine and assume we are all stupid and unable to figure out how to succeed in a system.

I dont understand how the woke left thinks its appropriate to treat people like they don't have intelligence and agency and merely sit around waiting for the white man to help.

> It is absolutely infuriating that the woke left wants to remove agency from experiences like mine and assume we are all stupid and unable to figure out how to succeed in a system... I don't understand how the woke left thinks its appropriate to treat people like they don't have intelligence and agency and merely sit around waiting for the white man to help.

To be clear, I am the opposite of the left. I also share all those same personal background with you. Ultimately, I do not believe immigrants are waiting for white man to help. In fact, when I'm pointing out privilege and entitlement, I am ironically using the left's weapon of choice against them. The loudest woke people are highly educated, privileged, white and Asian liberals.

If we're having oppression olympics, I grew up in Section-8 housing of the inner city. I have friends who are serving life terms in prison and dozens other dead in gang violence. I've had a gun pointed at me twice. If my parent's weren't working all the time, they were gambling the rest. I didn't even know the SATs existed until I was 16, and when I finally took the SATs, my dad told my mom "he's taking the exam, but he's not going to do well".

We can call it even because you also assumed I was a woke white social justice warrior.

> I have multiple friends who got into university through the TOEFL.

And they don't have to take the SATs?

My original assumption is that the TOEFL is complimentary to but not a substitute for the SAT. To return to your original comment, your point is that in the presence of the TOEFL universities put zero weight on the SAT reading/writing section?

Yep. It enables discrimination because it enables college admissions to become almost entirely subjective. It's a way to get attaboys for banning legacies while simultaneously opening a back door to let them in without scrutiny. And that's not even mentioning all the other ways college admissions might discriminate against deserving candidates.

Why does it encourage that? What incentive does admissions have to admit students with wealthy parents? To me it seems like it gives admissions an excuse to admit anyone they want even if they have super low test scores as long as it is in the name of inclusivity and diversity.

It's about reducing the number of Asian Americans in admissions, who vastly outperform other groups on the SAT(1). Ivy leagues like Harvard have been discriminating against Asians for years with affirmative action and bullshit like "personality score"(2). This is yet another anti-Asian, anti-merit move by ideologues who want an "equitable" pie chart of skin colors for their Powerpoint presentations.

1. https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-h...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...

SAT and ACT scores are, on a macro level, a measure of social status and parent's wealth.

This is a commonly repeated myth but it's untrue. For example, SAT coaching makes a minimal difference in test scores: https://www.jefftk.com/p/sat-coaching-what-effect-size

In contrast, holistic measures like looking at extracurriculars are much more correlated to wealth and social status.

People always point to coaching to refute this argument but that isn't really what makes the difference. I never had any professional coaching for the SAT, but I did have:

- Access to unlimited test prep material (from College Board, Princeton Review, Kaplan, others). Each book was $100+, and I must have easily spent a few thousands on books, sample tests, vocabulary lists and other material.

- A laptop and stable internet connection.

- My own quiet and comfortable room to study in.

- No other real responsibilities taking up my time. I didn't have to cook or take care of younger siblings. Didn't have to work part time jobs after school and late into the evening/night.

- Access to private counselors through my school which was in an expensive and well-funded school district.

All of this made a huge different to my test score, and I don't see how anyone can argue that someone in a worse financial condition won't be adversely affected.

That myth comes from the test prep industry, which makes exaggerated claims about their importance.

"Once scholars control for all these factors as best they can, they find that coaching has a positive but small effect: Perhaps 10 or 20 points in total on the SAT, mostly on the math section, according to careful work by Derek Briggs of the University of Colorado Boulder and Ben Domingue of Stanford University.

...a 20-point improvement to a score in this range would have no practical meaning for students who are trying to get into more selective schools. Even when it comes to less selective schools, just 20 percent of the counselors said a boost from 430 to 450 would make a difference. In other words, research has debunked the myth that pricey test prep gives a major bump to students’ scores, but it’s also hinted that whatever modest bumps they do provide are more likely to help the people who are already at the top."

https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...

> For example, SAT coaching makes a minimal difference in test scores

I really don't understand how this statement is even remotely true.

The only thing I can think of is that "coaching" is too broad--ie. includes both students who spend 100+ hours and students who spent an hour at a talk by the guidance counselor.

Doing nothing other than taking a couple sample tests has to net you a bunch of points because you don't have to waste time reading the directions.

Simply drilling basic mathematics so I could do "1+1" and come up with 2 regularly netted me almost 250 points in Math (standardized tests like the SAT are really nasty about having answers that match the common mistakes).

Going through 6000 vocabulary words pulled my verbal up almost 250 points (and had a dramatic effect on my writing). But that's far beyond "coaching" ... that's a multi-year commitment.

You're comparing coaching to not preparing at all. The question is how much more effective is preparation with a coach, versus the same amount of preparation without one.

That's practice, right? Coaching would be practice directed by a tutor.

Coaching can help kids who otherwise wouldn't have the discipline to practice themselves (SAT prep is very boring).

Isn't the whole point of things like this to help edge cases? I grew up poor and did badly in school, but I was smart enough to score in the top 3% of SAT scores and that allowed me to get in to many colleges that I wanted, something I would not have had based on my grades and ability to pay.

“students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat...

Correlation != Causation

Do you have a citation for the causation that you seem to strongly imply?

The article I linked above has a bunch of the sources you want if you read it.

More importantly, why use the SAT when your highschool grades are more accurate? This is what I'm really annoyed about! Why put everyone though a stressful test when your grades are more accurate?

https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-suc...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2018/06/11/what-...

Meaning what?

Meaning that if you have money you will get a better score than if you don't. If that's not a problem to you then fine but I think its a little messed up.

Is it just owning the money which grants you a better score? In that case that's the problem indeed. But if you think that investing money in your or your kids development is a problem I tend to disagree. That's the whole point of having money.

I understand what your trying to say but paying for a tutor to specifically train you for the SAT is not giving your child a better education. (Well it kind of is because they'll get into a better college from a better SAT score but training for the test itself doesn't really make you more educated)

If if just getting a better education gives you a better score on the SAT then that is a "problem" impossible to fix. However, teaching kids tips and tricks to do better on the SAT would have minimal effect on their actual intelligence. That right there is the main problem: Preparing for the SAT has no substantial increase in intelligence but does make it seem like you do.

I don't have much time when I'm writing this so if your confused by something just ask

I see your point now, and I do agree with it. Sorry, but it was rather difficult to get it from the original message.

Hey thanks for reading it! I thought it was a misunderstanding! (I'm sometimes not very clear)

> Isn't the whole point of things like this to help edge cases?

No, just that's a marginal side effect. The whole point of standardized testing is the "standardized" part - to provide a common metric upon which to base large scale institutional decisions.

The edge cases (and also the large biases in the system) are handled by other criteria, like weighing other aspects of a candidate's background against their academic performance.

This is why it's important that you can submit test scores if you want.

I expect a lot of people will anyway, if the test scores are good.

You can still submit test scores, this just means that the colleges don't require them.

You're right-- there will never be a metric that the rich won't find a way to game. SATs will get tutoring (and in rare cases, cheating). If colleges focus on grades, there will be grade inflation. Essays will be bought. Interviews will be coached for. Expensive family trips will be turned into stories about personal growth.

If we accept all that, the question becomes this: if you were a poor but talented kid, which metric would you like them to focus on? I was a poor immigrant raised by a single parent, and to me the answer is that I want them to focus on the SAT.

We could never afford the prep courses, but the prep books were cheap at the local bookstore and free at my high school library. I took advantage of that. Now there are even more options, such as the Khan Academy's free prep course. There's even some data suggesting the free course produces outcomes that rival the paid courses[1].

Bottom line, the SAT gave people like me a fair shot. It can be gamed a little, but I worry that replacing it with a "holistic approach" will just become a proxy for social/class status that will penalize people like me.

[1] https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/new-data-links-20-hours-pe...

How's that exactly? I studied in school, took the tests, and received a score. I didn't have SAT tutors. I took the PSAT, and I sort of remember some practice workbooks. How did my receiving decent scores on those tests indicate my social status or parent's wealth?

I think the argument is that someone whose parents are richer can afford to boost their kids' scores through tutoring, prep classes etc. So, if there are two identical kids, one whose parents have more resources will come out ahead.

I think one needs to be careful of survivorship bias here -- "the system worked for me, so it is fine".

The issue with banning SAT/ACTs, etc. is that is the system they're using in its place with actually better?

However, many well off parents will feel like they worked hard to move up, and provide their kids with best educational opportunities... but now the rules are changing. It is definitely a hard problem to try to equalize for wealth and at the same time not overly penalizing somewhat wealthy parents that also care about kids' education.

> So, if there are two identical kids, one whose parents have more resources will come out ahead.

This is true of pretty much every single thing they can use to measure students, though. Test scores, classwork scores, sports, extracurricular activities, social interactions; all of these things are easier for children in wealthier families.

And SATs are the ONE thing that has to be performed openly when it counts without any kind of coaching, proofreading, parental persuasion, or social connection.

Indeed, it is not an easy problem

He said macro level. In other words, statistically kids do better when they are in a wealthier household or have higher educated parents.

You also never mentioned what exactly your social status or wealth was then. Were you living in poverty when you got those scores?

My exeperience has much less to do with what level of poverty one was considered. Back when I was in school while Moses was in his cradle and dirt was being invented, there were no specialist tutors for taking tests. Teachers taught subjects, students learned said subject to the best of their abilities, and then took tests. Tutors were typically older students that did well in the subject matter, or even extra time with teachers before/after school. My parents would have laughed at me to ask for testing tutors, and would have rather less politely to put my nose back in a book and study harder.

Cool story and all, but it does have to do with poverty level. Did you have to worry about food or housing situations, have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working, deal with substance abuse of parents, or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families?

You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things.

>Cool story and all, but it does have to do with poverty level

Somethings I just don't volunteer as they are private, but since you asked in this very public forum:

>Did you worry about food or housing situations

yes

>have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working

yes

>deal with substance abuse of parents

luckily, no. but abuse from parent, yes. parents with undiagnosed medical conditions, yes.

>or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families

yes

>You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things.

To quote the Dude, "that's like, your opinion, man". There were definite obstacles to overcome. I was able to, others are not. I'm not judging anyone for not being able to as situations are different, yet you seem to be wanting to judge me. My economic situation changed as did the economy dictated the earning ability of parent's jobs. I was taught how to talk to people that came to the door looking for the "adults" or called on the phone (before we finally went without a phone all through my high school years). Did I live in the ghetto? No. One of the better financial decisions my parents made and were able to do was built their own house. Not paid a builder, my dad and grandfather cut the wood, swung the hammers.

What was your situation like?

Alcoholic and abusive father, enabling and abusive mother. Lived adjacent to the 'ghetto' neighborhoods in a city with a high violent crime rate. Things got a little better financially in my mid teens, but the damage had been done on a mental level.

I didn't go to college until I was 26, mostly because it never seemed like an option. Now that I've been through it and have a job and career and have been able to work through the mental damage from my childhood, I feel a huge amount of empathy for kids who are coming from similar situations.

Anyway, didn't mean to be judgmental, so apologies for that. I just feel strongly about the topic.

Wealth means that a student can receive all the advantages of the best tutoring and preps that money can buy.

They didn’t, at least not anymore than doing good in school does in general.

intelligence has a hereditary component; social status and wealth correlate with intelligence.

> on a macro level

The nature of these tests ensures that they are easy to score highly on through rote practice with a coach. Coaches cost money.

That must by why all those children of Asian immigrants excel on standardized exams, who btw also happen to be the poorest group in places like NYC. Many of them still send their kids to cram schools for coaching, however dire their financial situation, and their kids in turn sacrifice after-school, weekends, and summers vacation toiling with tutors/coaches.

This insane unfairness has to end.

That there is more than one way to excel at a standardized test does not mean that economic inequality doesn't play a big role.

Note that never at any point did I claim that _only_ money could lead to success on these tests. It's then irrelevant that a group of children from specific socio-economic and cultural circumstances and backgrounds happen to succeed on them. It doesn't matter—I didn't say it couldn't happen.

Money plays a role because of the nature of the test. It's an unescapable reality that children who would otherwise score much lower scores highly simply because their parents can afford a tutor to hammer questions into their child and resolve doubts every day. They don't learn many life skills, true mathematical appreciation, scientific knowledge, or real literary analysis skill from the 'tutoring'—the test, then, is purely a reflection of the tutoring money they spent and not their actual college readiness.

the fact that you have to exclude inconvenient evidence to justify your argument very weakens it. I'm sick of racists comments that Asians don't matter, or they are always outliers as if they are invisible, especially when it comes to education.

I don’t appreciate your characterization of my criticism of the SAT as racist.

I didn’t say that “Asians are outliers”. I said that the fact that some people don’t pay to excel at a test doesn’t make the test inherently fair.

Intelligence, on a macro level, is a measure of proper nutrition throughout childhood, which is a measure of social status and wealth.

Life, on a macro level, is not fair.

but what are the alternatives to SAT/ACT? In my mind they're even worse:

1. number of AP/IB classes student took (mostly dependent on how rich the school and how attentive and educated their parents are)

2. participation in extra-curriculars (again, participation in things Model United Nations are highly highly correlated with wealth)

3. volunteer experience or other outside of school experience (again highly correlated with wealth, students working pizza delivery at 16 don't have time for volunteering)

I'm not saying the SAT/ACT is perfect, but at least everyone can easily get free or very cheap study materials and practice exams online and from libraries.

Putting more weight on the math section than the reading/writing section which favors native speakers and those with more social context to interpret reading passages.

The purpose of standardized testing is identify the most worthy candidate. It is meant to be colorblind. Certainly it is not perfect, and wealthy families can help their kids game the system, but it is at least something. If you remove standardized testing, what will you replace it with?

Yes, but this doesn’t imply that SATs unfairly favor rich people. The most recent shared ancestor in this causal graph is “parents’ intelligence”, which causally influences both their expected wealth and their children’s intelligence. SAT is basically an IQ test.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-bee... is a good podcast explaining how

So is studying for math, or anything really.

They’ve redefined “equitable” to explicitly preclude any kind of meritocratic system.