You can also just hire tutors to help you with coursework. How is the SAT different in that aspect?

Yes yes, have them do it at your lake house during the derby my good sport. You can even take more time if you have your chef prepare you meals so you can study through!

What? You are missing the point completely.

The parent comment is saying that with the SAT removal, the only hard number the admissions officers have left to use is GPA. And GPA is just as gameable, if not even moreso than SAT scores, for kids with wealthy parents.

My response was in the privilege it takes to assume hiring a tutor is trivial / affordable for generic students, not that things can be gamed by wealthy parents.

> Maybe we need randomized admissions when kids qualify above a threshold...

That won't work.

The whole point is this is social engineering to ensure that demographics at universities match demographics at large.

Truly random admissions won't guarantee that especially when the applicant pool doesn't match the demographics at large to begin with.

The linked article may give you another point of view.

It didn't. The author seems to have a gut-felt conviction that there is no bias or damage in standardized testing or its subsequent use for university admissions.

The problem is that every approach to university admissions will be flawed.

Personally I think there should be a lottery system after a certain grade/extracurricular cut-off. The difference at a certain point between students is negligible and a lottery system would help alleviate some bias. Of course there's plenty of things wrong with this approach as well, you're never going to find something that pleases everyone.

I'm not sure of any state universities using a lottery, but some do automatically admit the top N% of students from every high school. For example, U of Texas admits the top top 6% or every high school.

Random stable matching would work.. rank your top 5 and they rank you.

Did you even read the article?

> How do I know all of this? Because unlike the regents, who enthusiastically voted to eliminate the tests for the first time in 2020, I did not ignore the findings of a 225-page report that was prepared for them at the request of the UC’s then-president, Janet Napolitano. This report[1], by the Academic Council’s Standardized Testing Task Force, was based on years of UC admissions data and was the product of a tremendous amount of work by a formidable team of experts in statistics, medicine, law, philosophy, neuroscience, education, anthropology, and admissions.

> The scholars determined that the obvious challenges faced by low-income Black and Latino students were poverty and poor K–12 education. And they found that the UC’s use of standardized tests did not amplify racial disparities. They agreed that the university should continue using test scores in admissions, but recommended that the UC begin developing its own test, which would be designed to meet the needs of both students and the institution.

[1] https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/...

The issue is not if testing "amplifies" racial disparity.

If it is the link in the chain which makes sure the disparity is carried on, especially to bigger amplifiers like college admission, then the decision to abandon it is clear.

Even if it is also a link in the chain which makes sure the disparity is broken?

You do realize that it is possible for it to be both right?

The question is whether or not it helps more than it hurts and no one seems to care that it helps the students from poorer areas distinguish themselves.

Problem is that they don't distinguish themselves at a high enough rate to make up for the disparity. It is much harder for them to do so.

what? did you RTFA? The author gives an argument based on concrete evidence that the SAT helps underrepresented minorities, and states there ALREADY is a pathway (that also lots of underrepresented minorities use) that avoids the SAT, the biggest problem being that statewide guidance counselors are not instructed on the existence of that pathway.

Intention is not evidence of success.

no, but actual flux of humans through those programs is. I feel like you still haven't read the article.

Hey man, totally agree. Instead let's just give IQ tests, because test prep doesn't help. Uhuh, whoops, those are racist too.

The SAT was an IQ test at one point. Anyway, other modern Western countries seem to have figured this out.

This is a bizarre canard that people keep running with. You can prep for the SAT but it adds 20-30 points at most. So mostly you can't prep for it. You certainly can't buy a high score.

College sports is a racket though for sure.

So personalized tutoring does nothing to improve your score? What an absurd suggestion.

That USED to be line line but it has since changed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/...

Coaching and tutoring has diminishing returns. Simply having done the practice test before the actual one would both significantly boost the score while reducing the anxiety. The tricks are not hard to learn, and practice tests are cheap to buy (or borrow from library). SAT is (was) probably the cheapest way to boost admission chance for a poor student compared to extracurricular, competitions, volunteering, etc. Those with money always have an advantage, but standardized test like SAT is probably the most egalitarian, as everyone has to take the tests by themselves in a controlled environment.

I didn't know Khan Academy was elitist, expensive or personalized.

No amount of expensive tutors is going to help a rich kid on the SAT unless they really do all the work.

Interesting I was 150 points of Stanford.. should’ve prepped.

It helps but you’re not gonna add 1000 points to your score if you didn’t pay attention in high school unless you’re basically attending a high school’s worth of test prep.