Harvard has. It involves making students write essays and considering all of their accomplishments. Harvard isn't just looking for the smartest people. They're not looking for the most academically successful. They are looking for people who will be powerful and wealthy. Is it fair that harvard admits people just because their parents have money and power? I guess not, but they're not trying to be fair. They're trying to admit people who will have money and power.
so I don't think that Harvard "figured it out"
I've been arguing that standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent.
Just accepting the fastest people might be the fairest way to win NCAA track meets, but that isn't their goal, so it's not how they run admissions.
For example with 0 or as little human factor as possible, without biases.
>Standardized tests have very little impact on ones likeliness to have a successful business or political career.
I'm not saying standardized tests are good proxy for being businessman or politician.
They're fair and transparent way that allows people to bootstrap themselves.
Even if you're poor ass, then you have access to Internet and can learn all those things good enough to get to the top schools.
So I'm using fair and transparent metrics proxying for learning capabilities, knowledge (in topics related to degrees) , etc, etc?
>I'm not saying Harvard needs to change.
>I've been arguing that standardized tests are best available method (at scale) because they're at least fair and transparent.
The discussion started in this context - I replied to this.
>The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel nice to say that everyone is equal, but not everyone has an equal chance.
I'm speaking more broadly - about the whole edu. sys.
Transparent, maybe. Fair? As noted above, test success is largely a measure of a student's access to resources and parental support. And the usual retort to that assertion is that study books are free at the library, to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?"
Anyways, the main discussion was the insane number of admin staff on campus. Admissions staff is only a small slice of that.
Internet and that's not very high bar. I've personally mostly used it when preparing for math exams.
>to which I'd respond "if it's that easy, what is the test really measuring?"
Access to informations at the level of those tests isn't difficult.
What's being measured? how proficient you are at tested topics, how good your knowledge is.
>Transparent, maybe. Fair? As noted above, test success is largely a measure of a student's access
What's more fair then?
Those tests are as possibly fair as we can get.
Though I agree GPA is not better than standardized tests. It still is a very useful metric.
Standardized tests have difficiencies, but at least the scores are comparable.
Maybe for lulz/curiosity, definitely not when it comes to accepting somebody into college.
How to compare GPA of people who didn't gave a fuck about "lame"/"easy" subjects and outperformed at maths, physics, etc
with people who didn't outperform at e.g maths, physics, but were putting effort into the lame subjects?
Feel free to figure out better system.
Tests while not perfect, are in my opinion at least fair and relatively transparent.
>High school GPA and class rank are a more accurate indicator of success in postsecondary
jesus christ - GPA. I honestly don't know any more biased metric than GPA.
Even if GPA is better predictor of how hardworking you are, then I still don't care, there's too much bias in this metric.
Standarized tests are "pure", they aren't your average not 100% emotionally stable teacher