Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles

Re:Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions... by mbesto on Monday March 28, 2022 @03:12PM (#30834376)

We have to read the sentence very carefully. It's saying that regardless of socioeconomic factors, the number correlates with graduate success rate. This seems like a very easy "duh". The way I read that is "if a student gets in the 99th percentile regardless of whether they grow up rich or poor, they are likely to do well at MIT". This doesn't talk about acceptance rates based on socioeconomic factors.

The point in question is whether the students in a lower socioeconomic situation even has a chance to get into MIT.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions... by Psyladine on Wednesday March 30, 2022 @10:56AM (#30856049)

It's not saying regardless, it's says controlled for. A subtle distinction, but the former is a raw comparator and latter is an adjustment, which implies even with a bias that still doesn't account for substantive change.

I was hoping someone had more insight into process or metrics on it.

Your own post has an implicit accusation that lower socioeconomic situations preclude high testing, which has all kinds of implications about the quality of education and living standards as a prior for acumen. I suppose my own bias shows in drawing that conclusion though. As Henry said though,

"If I had seven peasants, I could make seven lords. But if I had seven lords, I could not make ONE Holbein."

[ Parent | on HN ]