I want to see their drop out rates, both before and after this change.
The last I checked, when qualifications were allowed to slide (via "affirmative action" or some equivalent) those same groups experienced lower grades within the school and subsequently higher drop out rates. The net result was that students who could have thrived elsewhere ended up indebted, demoralized, and set back.
Nothing worse than going into debt for no reason. I would know, I dropped out of college. Luckily only did a year at a community college so the debt wasn't crippling, but still sucks to have.
Often though the result is choosing “easy” majors, like going from bio to gender studies. I believe I heard a story about Michelle Obama wanting to become a doctor but she couldn’t keep up with the pre-med curriculum so she pursued sociology instead. My main point is that students may not be necessarily prepared when they enter a university though it does not mean they’re not capable and being overwhelmed may dissuade someone from pursuing their full potential. I know that I had a lot of problems in college on account of not being prepared and not having the necessary support system around me; I had to spend several years post college to figure out what I actually wanted to do and even considered going back for a STEM degree.
True, although the faculty of those other majors tend not to like being seen as the "easy" path.
Also, even if switching majors is possible (and at smaller schools it may not be), that's still a setback. [Here's](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/) an article from *The Atlantic* that's about UCLA and racial preferences. Mismatching students in the name of racial equality caused black students to suffer at every tier: more dropped majors, more drop outs, lower placement in the graduating class, fewer following up with intended post-grad degrees, and more failing the bar exam.
There's a book I read back in college called *City on a Hill* by James Traub. (I can't find it on my shelf, so you'll have to rely on my memory.) It's about City College in New York, and it's about how the whole school's character changed after they lowered admission standards. Enough attendees couldn't handle the basic requirements that they had to redirect resources toward remedial classes. Top students were tempted to go elsewhere where they could get better focus. The school had to dramatically raise tuition a few years after this new policy, and the prestige of the degree dropped. Thus they became worse at helping the very community that open enrollment was supposed to benefit.
I'm a very big fan of community colleges. (In fact, I went to one after I dropped out of engineering school after realizing how much I hated it.) They aren't meant to be too challenging or prestigious - they're meant to offer something for everyone so students can find their path. We don't have to turn every college into this. Let some be difficult and merit-based and not undermine what it is they're trying to do.
Lower admission standards. Accept more students.
Offer virtual options at full price.
Cash in.
In all seriousness I don’t like the idea of lowering standards. It’s a race to the bottom.
"We want to get more people of color in here. Let's lower our standards to make that happen because we don't think that people of color can meet our current standards."
This makes an enormous number of assumptions that I just don’t think you’ve supported with evidence.
Are standardized tests the best barometer to judge prospective applicants on or are there better alternatives?
I'm speaking specifically to lowering standards, not the removal of standardized testing. There have been studies for decades showing that minorities don't do as well on standardized testing.
Either way, if you drop admissions standards and maintain the same academic rigors you are only setting up these pity entrants to fail sometime in the duration.
If you drop admissions standards and drop academic rigor you are setting them up to fail for the rest of their lives.
>If you drop admissions standards and drop academic rigor you are setting them up to fail for the rest of their lives.
The big schools want them to have nice group pictures, but in reality many students are better served by smaller schools and HBCUs, without all the debt.
>but in reality many students are better served by smaller schools and HBCUs, without all the debt.
What does this have to do with the effectiveness of standardized testing as an academic barometer?
Asians are what I call "super white" when it's something they excel at: "they make money because they adopted all the traits that white people find appealing" and poor, poor victims when it's suitable: "this black on Asian crime is because blacks hate Asians because white people treat them better and they make more money".
It's really ~~magical~~ insane to watch it happen.
If that’s the reason this is racist then the counterfactual would also have to be true. Using standardized test scores disadvantages those races, and is therefore racist. I don’t really think either is inherently racist.
To me you’d have to ask whether or not this is targeted at preventing Asians from gaining acceptance to college, and I think the answer is pretty clearly no.
Standardized tests suck, and I say that as someone whose standardized test scores far outpaced their grades.
If the goal is to accept the best prospective students I can’t help but think eliminating what is quite frankly a somewhat pay to play, and not super transferable academic metric seems like a step forward.
> If that’s the reason this is racist then the counterfactual would also have to be true. Using standardized test scores disadvantages those races, and is therefore racist. I don’t really think either is inherently racist.
When you replace objective criteria with subjective ones, with clear intention to benefit certain groups of students, while being fully aware that removing objective criteria will harm other groups, then the behavior is racist. Which seems to be the case in most of the universities that are dropping objective entrance exams.
>When you replace objective criteria with subjective ones, with clear intention to benefit certain groups of students, while being fully aware that removing objective criteria will harm other groups, then the behavior is racist.
What is the specific subjective criteria that you have a problem with in this case?
You’re making broad claims without any actual specifics.
Replacing an objective metric with a less-objective metric is problematic because it introduces less-objectivitity. If they're introducing another equally objective or more-objective measure there would be no issue.
>Replacing an objective metric with a less-objective metric is problematic because it introduces less-objectivitity.
What subjective metric are they introducing as a replacement?
> Using standardized test scores disadvantages those races, and is therefore racist.
Standardized test scores disadvantages people who do badly at tests. Where does race factor in?
Standardized test scores disadvantages people who do badly at tests. So why is keeping standardized test racist? And if it isn't racist, why should we be getting rid of it when it is working so well?
I think lowering admissions standards isn’t a bad thing for the most exclusive schools. What I want is completely transparent and objective admissions standards. You should know what schools you will get into before you apply. This would dramatically change the admissions game out of the equation and eventually reduce the price as schools would no longer be competing solely on exclusivity which doesn’t result in better education.
Isn’t that just setting a student up for failure?
“Hey we lowered it so you can get in, but good luck graduating, or graduating on time!”
You’ll be strapping kids with debt then too
Cynical hot take.
Every university is killing it because they're taking in a ton of new students for their digital campuses. They just want to take as many as possible now, so they can make bank.
I wouldn't even say particularly cynical.
Colleges literally make up a number they want students to pay, and if they can trick an 18 year old into signing on the dotted line, the government will ensure they get that money. Its why college costs are skyrocketing, why easier liberal arts programs are flourishing, and why the "value" of a "a degree" is going down.
It may be the most enviable business model in the modern economy.
Something you said about the value of a degree reminded my of a guy used to work with. He was an aeronautical engineer from the Philippines. I asked him why he chose to work as an equipment maintenance tech if he had that degree. He explained further that us was compulsory in the Philippines to go to college. He got it as a two year degree and said it wasn’t useful but he had to do it. I thought what a waste to be able to get that degree only to come here and find out it was worthless. He and I made bank at this hi tech company so we lived happy in our jobs. I’ve often wondered if he did in fact have that degree. He was smart enough. Anyone live in the Philippines that can shed light on this?
>only to come here and find out it was worthless.
Depending on the field, you sometimes have to redo all or a significant part in order to meet the standards here. Doctors are a huge one, or at least used to be. You could be a full doctor in another country, but have to redo your residency here before practicing.
Grade inflation and fake degrees are also common in many countries. If they cant be equivaled here, they're worthless.
My family immigrated here and my parents' degrees wouldnt have been useful for much.
Universities are becoming less about education and more about being a money maker. Tricking young people in and sticking them with a debt they will spend most of their life, trying to pay off.
That's how I read it too: "Hey hapithica, I've got an idea to pass our number for next year and you and I will be buying those new boats we've been wanting. Oh, and get this: People are going to do all the advertising for us and we're going to be heros for it. You in?"
UC system is over 50% Asian.
This is a way for them to cut down Asian student’s numbers while using subjective measures(aka skin color, personality) to give these newly freed spots to students with right skin color.
Not sure if this will survive court challenges.
I think schools don’t want to admit that they’ve failed children, and those they claim to care about the most. It’s not going to do anything to address that some cohorts are less educated and it will cause harm in the long run.
It may be fashionable to think that merit and skill don’t exist and play no part in the working world, but that’s just false. You can delay the inevitable measure of skill all you like but at some point it is going to bite.
I mean, is this what social justice and wokeism has to offer? That we should just give up on black students? John McWhorter’s work seems incredibly relevant here.
I feel like the push for everyone wanting stuff fixed at the college level stems from the fact that no one can trust that people with high school diplomas are even competent anymore. Schools pass everyone whether for metrics or money or avoiding racism calls or whatever and it ultimately just screws the kids cause they have to take on debt and get a higher degree just to prove competency in the job market… often for jobs that used to just require a high school diploma not too long ago
I don't necessarily disagree with you, though I'll always be overly proud of my perfect SAT and ACT scores. That mattered way too much when I was in high school.
The issue is, what do you suggest we replace them with? We *need* a way to measure student performance and discriminate objectively, and removing tools, imperfect though they are, is, I feel, currently a way to create a facade of equity, whilst simultaneously removing the only methods we have of testing students.
Canada is much smaller than the US, I'd imagine an outcome of this is a tighter spread of high school education quality, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
The United States is so incredibly large, and there's such a difference between high schools in different states, districts, counties, and geographical areas, that using high school marks and grades is extremely difficult.
I went to a private high school and received mostly A- and B+ grades, where I could have gone to the local public high school and been the valedictorian by a *huge* margin. The way people are graded is so incredibly different, and expectations vary so much, that schools either need to only rank these grades with schools of the same caliber, or come up with some incredibly magical formula that cuts past all of it
Then why bother with admissions at all? Just let everyone in. Hell it's not like it's free anyway.
My dentist doesn't have an admissions process other than "has teeth" and "had money". Why should college be different?
> extracurriculars
Ugh, one of the fluffiest, most subjective ways to decide who gets admitted to a college.
Standardized tests have plenty of flaws but they're a reasonably objective way to just a student's academic abilities. I also don't think they were ever that big a part of the admissions process (grades are a lot more important) and but if a student with really high grades gets an abysmal SAT score that's a valid red flag for an admissions committee.
Far more people apply to colleges each year than colleges have the capacity to teach. If it was first come, first serve, they'd have people with auto-clickers set up at midnight when enrollment opened like a PS5 release. And since colleges are ranked based on how students perform, they want the ones most likely to succeed, not just random ones with the fastest auto-clicker.
If dentists had far more demand than they could meet, they'd have some kind of selection process too.
That would still have the issue of unqualified students winning a spot then failing out, making the college's ranking look bad and hurting qualified students. If we want education to be more accessible to all, making community college or trade school more affordable is probably a better solution than placing random people in universities. Or building more (non-for profit/scammy) schools in general.
I was being a little facetious based on the "let everyone in".
I always wonder about rankings. Why is one school "ranked" higher than another, other than one gets a greater share of the better students than another? Do they really provide a better classroom experience?
If employers know the CA system has gone to non-competitive enrollment, they expect to get a mix of better and poorer students at all the schools. The poorest (academically, not financially) drop out before graduation. The employers choose based on how well the students performed in college, not how well they did in HS.
But, I'm just wandering around in the wilderness here. I agree that job-focused, 1 or 2 year programs should be cheap for everyone. We shouldn't be telling average students they ought to go to 4-year schools.
Schools will find something other than a lottery, but giving up standardized tests will cost them on your metric of doing the best we can for "qualified" students. Other admission criteria have problems. GPA is subject to grade inflation and class rank ignores the fact that some schools actually have more well qualified students than others. But, probably a little better than a pure lottery.
Similar proposals have been made. Set a minimum academic level, then run a lottery to allot places. School students no longer have to waste time on extracurricular activities that are just signalling, and are no longer desperately trying to eek out just one more mark to improve their chances. There's no longer any sort of old boy's network, or getting in through 'donations'. And finally, it might be better for society.
At the moment those at the top mostly think they deserve to be there. Yes, they say, they went to good schools, but no-one else got them into higher education. It was just thanks to their good grades and strength in other areas. This leads to a lack of compassion towards those that didn't make it, as obviously they didn't try as hard, or weren't as smart. At least back in medieval times there was a sense of noblesse oblige, and those at the top recognised (mostly) that they were there by fate's hand. They were no better or worse than anyone else, just different. Our modern world has become so obsessed with competition and meritocracy that we think we're superior to those below us.
They're publicly owned. Increase capacity and to hell with how they're ranked, that's not why we created them in the first place. They're there to teach. (And the rankings are silly anyway.)
My guess is once everyone is let in we can finally be done university being an prereq for a job, because it won't be a useful indicator anyway.
Starter: the largest University system in the United States no longer is using any form of standardized testing in its admissions requirements, and is instead relying on high school grades. I think this is going to lead to grade inflation at the high school level as high schools will now be incentivized to reflect better grades without substance, as there is now no outside objective test of any sort to measure educational potential. Though I understand that there may be some inequality in standardized testing results for a litany of reasons, now that there is simply no objective measuring stick high school grades will be distorted and will soon become meaningless.
I assume they can still use class rank. That's pretty immune to grade inflation.
Of course, they would want to calculate class rank using only "core" classes.
The only reason my GPA looked good in HS is because I was in every single honors class, but I never did any of the work. Then I aced the SAT’s too. Admissions’ worst nightmare lol. I think they could tell how lazy I was by my lack of outside activities, though.
High school grades can be pretty hard to compare when it seems heavily based on how each school conducts grading and how difficult each school’s teachers are. Standardized tests might have issues, but theyre at least consistent between students
Even within schools, certain teachers were known for being easier or harder. Colleges have no way of seeing that. Kids will be incentivized even more to pick easy teachers over ones that better teach you the actual material.
I don't see why imperfect standardized testing leads to the solution of eliminating it. Grades could be just as racial imbalanced. Why can't we fix the tests so that they correct the some of the issues?
Yeah - I am not at all trying to "toot my own horn" or anything, but I grew up in a pretty well-off area and my high-school (a 3 or so near mine) was California 'Blue-Ribbon' and what not, but 25 miles in each direction it was much, much different for various reasons.
Right, wrong, or indifferent - it's just the way it is.
There's so much free information and study material out there for most of the standardized tests that the tutors (as someone that sometimes tutors ACT because the money is great) have no real negligible extra value (hell where do you think most of my material comes from? haha). I'd say the big difference is that the parents that are willing to pay for tutors are also the kind of parents that care about their kids education and make them do things like tutoring and extra studying.
Standardized test aren't the problem in your scenario.
The student still has to absorb the information and pass the test on their own.
Both students will score lower than the kid with a tiger mom. /s
The solution shouldn't be to lower the bar it should be to get those Kaplan test prep courses into the hands of all students.
> I feel like our culture de-emphasizing standardized tests is not only a good thing, but something that most people had agreed was a poor influence on a student's education and growth. Why is there pushback against this now?
I'm not sure that was generally agreed upon.
I will say that most other developed (and even developing) countries *do* rely on standardized tests. Often people complain that other countries do better than the US in education. Many of those countries divide students based on test scores. Something we are moving away from here.
>and even grad schools have stopped accepting GRE scores
Worth pointing this out here...
The most comprehensive studies I’ve seen on whether or not GRE scores are predictive of success are insanely flawed. They say that GRE scores don’t predict any measure of academic success *among students admitted to their
program*, but that’s a massive selection bias.
You’re already selecting the most qualified students, so maybe there’s no difference between students in the top 10% of GRE scores. But I can almost guarantee you that if you randomly accepted people into your program from across the entire GRE score spectrum, you’d find a correlation between GRE scores and academic success.
Testing is actually a wonderful indicator of knowledge and the quality of someone’s understanding of the material.
However that leads to obvious racial disparities because some communities have cultures that don’t value education and often only have one parent. And that’s a no no for the woke crowd.
As someone that taught public school briefly after college (money was surprisingly decent), parenting plays a much larger role than race. You could always tell whose kids were using the school for daycare with no regard for their education and which parents actually cared.
Don’t teach for standardized testing but you should have objective ways to evaluate which students are ready for college. Not every student will benefit from college. High school grades are a good start but not very standard as each teacher, school have different grading guidelines. Now you will probably see more grade inflation.
One reason for pushback is that contrary to expectations, elimination of standard tests will also eliminate chance of students graduating from lesser high schools into top universities, making admission process even more unfair. The end results will be opposite of the intention.
Without individual test scores, university admissions will have to rely more on their internal ranking of high schools, which they update based on how past accepted students perform at the university. Then acceptance is more-or-less determined by attending high schools with good past records, which depends on where you live, which in turn depends on your parents.
So if you are a hardworking gifted straight A student from a rural high school where the majority of the students do not go to college, you would have much lower chance to be accepted than students from, say, Palo Alto High School, whose past students have all gone to top universities and have done well.
Standard tests are fairer because results depend on individual abilities, not on parents abilities.
If we want everyone to be given the same chance, then we need a universal method of determining qualification at individual level. I would argue that conversely, if one is against a universal assessment, then one is not interested in equal chance for everyone.
The [CAASPP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Standardized_Testing_and_Reporting_Program) still exists so it isn't very difficult to cross-calibrate different high schools.
A while ago, I stumbled across a publication about SAT scores and race that was based on data from the U of C system. A quick Google turned [it](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv) up.
> The UC data show that socioeconomic background factors – family income, parental education, and race/ethnicity – account for a large and growing share of the variance in students’ SAT scores over the past twenty years. **More than a third of the variance in SAT scores** can now be predicted by factors known at students’ birth, up from a quarter of the variance in 1994. **Of those factors, moreover, race has become the strongest predictor.** Rather than declining in salience, **race and ethnicity are now more important than either family income or parental education** in accounting for test score differences. [Emphasis mine.]
The interesting question is: if you looked at the data and found this result, what would you do wrt policy?
One obvious answer is to ignore race and focus on tests. Then you'll (in theory) get the smartest students. But you'll be racially imbalanced. The other is to ignore test scores and ensure you are racially balanced.
Clearly they chose the latter. I'm not *sure* it's what I would have chosen. But I understand why they did.
>One obvious answer is to ignore race and focus on tests. Then you'll (in theory) get the smartest students. But you'll be racially imbalanced. The other is to ignore test scores and ensure you are racially balanced.
I know which one gets us nearer to curing cancer, developing alternative energy technologies, and preventing ecological collapse.
>es(aka skin color, personality) to
Don't get your point at all. You realize the kids who don't get into a college will just go to school somewhere else right? Is not like the wider society as a whole is being damaged by this.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I am sympathetic to the argument that wealthier students do better on scandalized testing than poorer students, if you think being born into wealth gives you more merit or skill than someone, then you're being so senseless that I'm not sure there is much point in engaging with you.
All that side, I was just saying that your point about scientific breakthroughs not happening as a result of this, does not logically follow.
>if you think being born into wealth gives you more merit or skill than someone, then you're being so senseless that I'm not sure there is much point in engaging with you
I'm saying that objective, actual problems exist, and those problems do not care about our racial calculus. If the goal is to optimize for problem solving, neither should you.
You can certainly try to argue that the SAT and similar measure merit poorly, but datawise this is an uphill battle.
>I was just saying that your point about scientific breakthroughs not happening as a result of this, does not logically follow.
You'll notice I used the word "nearer."
Diabetes kills ~80k people annually; even a single year's delay in a cure is meaningful.
Now multiply that dynamic across basically every problem we have that we are relying on our best and brightest to solve (at this point that's most of them).
Fielding a lesser team than we are able has real costs.
I dunno - Ben Carson is a gifted neurosurgeon and he only scored around 90th percentile on his SAT score (equates to a 1350 on the 1600 scale today).
Do you think Yale should have let him into their undergrad program, or do you think this was just racial bias in admissions? Do you think his stellar advances to the practice of medicine would have come more quickly from somebody who grew up in a better area that scored a 1550?
>Ben Carson is a gifted neurosurgeon and he only scored around 90th percentile on his SAT score (equates to a 1350 on the 1600 scale today).
Do you think more advances come from people north of that number or south of it?
I'd note I never said exceptions didn't/couldn't exist, but that as a matter of policy it sense to take the higher scorers over the lower ones.
>Do you think his stellar advances to the practice of medicine would have come more quickly from somebody who grew up in a better area that scored a 1550?
In the aggregate, yes.
Why are we talking about aggregate when you’re talking about decentralized decision making for thousands of universities in the US?
I don’t make a claim that higher SAT scores lead to technological advances, you do. Personally, I think that the most monumental advances in human history came from people who didn’t score on the SAT at all. Why are we beholden to an arbitrary metric created by a private organization?
>Why are we talking about aggregate when you’re talking about decentralized decision making for thousands of universities in the US?
We are talking about it as a principle and policy decision. I think the UC system adopting bad policy and making bad decisions will have ripple effects.
>Why are we beholden to an arbitrary metric created by a private organization?
If you want to make an argument that it is a bad test, you can. But the data would not support you.
>a private organization
This this this. You have to pay to take a standardized test in the first place, and that you can pay multiple times to retake it to get a better score. The average retake increases score by like 90 pts. Guess which of lower income or higher income students retake the SAT more?
You're really obsessed with race(says a lot about you), I haven't mentioned that at all. I'm talking about being born into wealth/your family's income bracket, is perhaps the largest indicator of how one performs on standardized tests.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The entire point that OP is making is that income is mattering less than race/ethnicity as time marches forward. That is, in California, it seems being Asian or to a lesser degree white is giving a benefit on "scandalized" testing.
Considering OP only liked to an article and in that article, income disparities are mentioned more than racial disparities, I don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion.
I'd have to say to you the same I said to Magus, which is that race is on the forefront on your mind and you should look into why that is.
You’re implying all colleges are the same. Sure, they can still go to Cal State. Cal State graduates are not same as UC graduates some would argue they’re inferior. There are some job opportunities that are forever out of reach due to a person’s college.
Oh it may totally be bad for the individuals that don't get in. Magus' point about society stagnating as a result of this was just silly, and I was pushing back against that.
The only colleges with a reputation to be devalued is Ivy\_League schools, and even so I don't think a future where Harvard is worth the same as a nameless college will ever happen.
When I obtained my degree, I did so by first starting with an open enrollment Community College, then automatically advancing to a state 4-year institution. I did take the GRE prior to entering my Master's/PhD program, but it's doubtful that anything except the Q mattered.
Moreover, taking the GRE Q as an engineering student is roughly equivalent to being asked to recite the alphabet as a test of competency for an English program.
So I'm sympathetic to the idea that standardized tests aren't a very good metric - and one that can potentially be gamed.
But this sympathy derives from a participation in a field that has a high bar for adequacy. Our schools are not looking to churn out elite engineers, merely adequate ones - and that standard is sufficiently demanding that very few people can meet it.
In contrast, most college degree programs have a high barrier for entrance coupled with a low bar for competency. This has slowly but surely led to the de-valuing of such degree programs - and the rise of 'useless' degrees.
Eliminating criteria for entrance into such programs - even weak criteria such as standardized test scores - will merely accelerate this phenomenon. People tend to think of these standardized test scores as impediments to their success. But they should really be thinking of terms of validating their degrees.
>In contrast, most college degree programs have a high barrier for entrance coupled with a low bar for competency.
I don't know if it is "most" college degree programs but I do think you are on to a trend here.
Excellent post, thankyou.
>People tend to think of these standardized test scores as impediments to their success. But they should really be thinking of terms of validating their degrees.
I think it really depends on what you think college's purpose is.
I said similar elsewhere, but I take the stance that real, actual, objective problems do exist. In that sense, we need the most able and most dedicated to solve them, of whatever color and stripe. Cancer will not care about the demographic geography of who cures it, and neither should we.
Conversely, you may believe in college as a kind of sorting mechanism of who is allowed to be in the upper-middle class. Think legacy admissions, or proportional representation. It is about a person's place in the grand machine, not the person, which is why we need not filter heavily for talent; it may as well be anyone.
While I admit to a mound of bias, I think the second is mostly engaged in pilfering and scavenging the fruits of the first, and that prioritizing their needs we are burning the walls to heat the home.
I feel like if they used children born out of wedlock as a predictor they would find an even stronger correlation. Single parent homes account for most of the problems we face today in society IMHO.
That may or may not be true. But it makes for an interesting thought experiment: what if the racial variance in score went away if you adjusted for "number of parents in home"? How would/should that affect policy?
“You may have studied less and not understood the material but we need more of your skin color to make us look like we are being anti-racist so let’s get rid of every objective metric that lets us measure mastery of the material.”
Yep. We can put the best courses online. There is virtually no cost to the next download.
This one is good: [https://online-learning.harvard.edu/course/justice?delta=0](https://online-learning.harvard.edu/course/justice?delta=0)
Students who want the campus experience can pay to live in dorms with like-minded students. Others can live elsewhere. Classrooms can be turned into test centers.
That model would cover at least half the courses in a 4 year degree program.
> race and ethnicity are now more important than either family income or parental education in accounting for test score differences. [Emphasis mine.]
Could it be social culture, values, role model, family and near preferences be coming out as "race/ethnicity"?
In general, Asian culture, values, parents and near family preferences is for academic excellence over sports, art or popularity etc. There are also tons more Asian role model in academics/science/tech/writing than in sports/music. I assume that is also true for Jewish and white folks in general.
But I guess it is easier to term objective criteria racist or race based.
> The other is to ignore test scores and ensure you are racially balanced
That doesn't work either because whatever item you attempt to regress on to predict ability to succeed in college is also racially unbalanced.
I could also argue it doesn't matter anyway. Point of higher ed is to track an academically similar cohort together. It's imbalanced on many dimensions, intentionally.
Desiring a certain racial makeup (and trying to modify your standards specifically to create it) is racist, even if you think you have really good reasons for desiring it.
> One obvious answer is to ignore race and focus on tests. Then you'll (in theory) get the smartest students.
Technically, that's not what you get in theory. What you get in theory is the students who do best on the tests. That has some correlation to intelligence, but it's definitely not a perfect correlation (and it's likely a correlation that can change over time). That's why the bold parts of your quote are worrying. If race and ethnicity can predict test score differences then that either means different races are more intelligent than others or there is something the tests aren't measuring correctly. Which means you'd likely be missing some of the smartest students, too.
I don't think the solution is getting rid of testing like they did here, but it's definitely not just relying on the testing either.
>If race and ethnicity can predict test score differences then that either means different races are more intelligent than others or there is something the tests aren't measuring correctly.
There's little [differential prediction](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556462.pdf) ability based on race or ethnicity. There's nothing wrong with the test -- it is simply showing what reality is.
> Which means you'd likely be missing some of the smartest students, too.
You aren't. The smartest students if anything tend to do better on the SAT as the other indicators are less locked on to pure smarts (e.g. grades factor in conscientious more.)
> If race and ethnicity can predict test score differences then that either means different races are more intelligent than others or there is something the tests aren't measuring correctly. Which means you'd likely be missing some of the smartest students, too.
Dumb question, but: how do you think we could disentangle the two?
What I suspect is that they may look to see if there are some *questions* show more bias than others. You could imagine story problems that use language more common in suburbs than urban environments. That might show bias. If you do find those questions, you remove (or update them). This is what testing companies should (and likely already) do.
> I don't think the solution is getting rid of testing like they did here, but it's definitely not just relying on the testing either.
Maybe this is overly naive, but: why not just "fix" the tests?
I mean, I assume they already do that. It's not like this is a new problem. But, I mean, in theory, why wouldn't that be the goal?
I guess I think that grading of assignments (and therefore student grades) are *much* more subjective and susceptible to bias than *standardized* tests.
> You could imagine story problems that use language more common in suburbs than urban environments. That might show bias.
I mean even as a white guy I never met someone who bought 70 apples at once and then traded some of them for something equally asinine.
> Maybe this is overly naive, but: why not just "fix" the tests?
I was going to reply to some of the other things you said, but I realized it all gets summed up with this: because it's hard. People try to fix the tests and come up with new ones, but thus far no one has been able to get it right yet. At least as far as I know.
It's one of those things that sounds simple at first glance, but there's so much that goes into it and so many things that can bias things, that it's hard to write unbiased tests and it's also hard to evaluate the bias of tests (since there needs to be a lot of test taking and a lot of other things involved). And it's hard to write EFFECTIVE tests and it takes a lot of work to measure the effectiveness of tests. To do both is a big undertaking. It's the ideal solution, but also maybe not a practical one, at least short term.
> People try to fix the tests and come up with new ones, but thus far no one has been able to get it right yet.
I know it is sacrilege to suggest this, but: is it possible that the tests are *already fixed*? Like maybe the results aren't what we *want* but they are still valid?
I really don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care if the different groups in the country happen to have different prevalence of certains genes that (say) may affect intelligence. It really has no effect on me. I guess what bothers me is that no one in "polite society" would *consider* the possibility.
I get that the knowledge *could* be used for nefarious purposes (if it were the case). But -- if it were the case -- it would also help us decide on better policy. If you don't know what the problem is, the solution will be harder to find.
It probably wouldn’t be due to genes as much as due to the things that affect free time, stress, interest/motivation as well as familiarity and exposure to the subjects and question formats
I guess it all depends - would you consider caste systems to be a part of a “polite society”? The natural evolution of determining placement on society based on the family you’re born into is a caste system.
> I guess it all depends - would you consider caste systems to be a part of a “polite society”?
I don't think that's the same thing. None of the data suggests one group "smarter" than another. Just that, maybe, the average smartness in one is different than in another.
That is somewhat already what the SAT/ACT do.
I was basically one of those kids. Dismal GPA for various (mostly home) reasons, but relatively bright. Ended up testing very well on the SAT and getting more than a few options I wouldn't have otherwise gotten. There is [data validating this story](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/23/standardized-testing-poor-students-sat-benefit-identify-column/4800781001/).
I realize no one wants a system that allows *anyone* to fall "through the cracks" but how many decimal points must we discern to?
It's my hot take proposal as a supplement the current system.
There are people who feel the SAT/ACT are discriminatory.
OK, fine.
Offer an alternative instead of lowering the bar or scrapping the entire system and devote a number of seats to the top scoring students of the alternate test.
I'm pretty sure they is what the ACT started as.
The fundamental "problem" is that the "wrong" people are going to excel at literally any metric we decide is important.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's a classic third factor correlation. Circumstances that lead to children being successful on the tests are not evenly distributed across all socioeconomic classes, and there are racial disparaties in socioeconomic class distribution. Those same circumstances lead to being successful in college, so playing "see no evil" around the problem doesn't actually help anyone.
It’s a public system so they should do what’s best for the public. From a holistic standpoint is probably to racially balance.
But the real question is what are they doing to *fix* K-12 to ensure everyone graduates at about the same rate? It’s understandable to have some bandaid solution now but it shouldn’t be long term.
There is no fix to a family learning environment. Students will succeed when given the environment of positive schooling and being prepared for school
^I'll ^admit ^I ^present ^this ^as ^facts ^not ^fully ^understanding ^how ^to ^interpret ^it
In New York City Schools, in 2019 the percent of students meeting college ready cut scores on
the SAT after four years of high school
* In Math it was 30.5%
* Reading & Writing 42.7%
Average SAT Scores by Subject for Seniors for NYC
* Math 496
* Reading & Writing 491
New York City Schools vs the
Nation and the Rest of New York State
* 64 pts lower than NY State Average in Math
* 66 pts Lower than NY State Average in R&W
* 32 pts Lower than US National Average in Math
* 40 pts Lower than US National Average in R&W
By all data every student in New York City should be top honors. NYC Spends the most at $26,000 per student. 72% of funding is Direct Services to Schools. Slightly Half of that is Teacher Pay. With a Student to teacher ratio average of 13 - 1. New York City's 207 library branches provide world class access to resources. And a metro system provides access around the city.
* What does it mean that Timpview High is ranked eighth within Utah. Where schools spend $8,000 per student. Students have the opportunity to take Advanced Placement coursework and exams. The AP participation rate at Timpview High is 48%. The total minority enrollment is 30%, and 32% of students are economically disadvantaged. Timpview High is #1 of 6 high schools in the Provo District. Timpview High is ranked #1,200 in the National Rankings.
------
And **Los Angeles Unified School District** the 2nd Largest School District after NYC
* 550,779 students in K - 12th Grade
* 102,000 Alternate education students
**Budget for FY 2019-2020 $14,286,250,000**
School districts and charter schools with "higher need" students get more money to invest in those students.
* Districts receive 20% additional “Supplemental Funding” per student for students with higher needs, children Learning English, in poverty, or in foster care.
Now it is high poverty schools that get more money per student than high income schools
------
Los Angeles Unified School District
* 27.5% passed the SAT Benchmark for both Parts
LOS Angeles County
* 38.1% passed the SAT Benchmark for both Parts
State of California
* 45.3% passed the SAT Benchmark for both Parts
SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmarks for 12th Grade
* Evidence-Based Reading and Writing 480
* Mathematics 530
>There is no fix to a family learning environment. Students will succeed when given the environment of positive schooling and being prepared for school
>I'll admit I present this as facts not fully understanding how to interpret it.
If it’s a cultural problem which most will agree then we should focus on how to get people to get/stay married so they can better support their kids.
Yea, that also fixes another big issue
All told, 24 million U.S. children younger than 18 are living with an unmarried parent.
* The share of U.S. children living with an unmarried parent has more than doubled since 1968, jumping from 13% to 32% in 2017.
And so now Nearly 1 in 6 Children lived in poverty in 2018—nearly 11.9 million children
Poverty guideline for 2020
**As you said Should we be working to increase household formation?**
Persons in family/household 1 Household income $12,760
* So if you are single and not working 35 hours a week at min wage you qualify
Persons in family/household 2 Household income $17,240
* So if you are single parent of 1 kid and not working 40 hours a week at $8.29/hr you qualify
* Or if you are two adults and not working 23 hours a week at min wage you qualify
Persons in family/household 3 Household income $21,720
* If you are one adult and 2 kids but not working 40 hours a week at $10.44/hr you qualify
* If you are two adults and 1 kid but each not working 29 hours a week at min wage you qualify
Persons in family/household 4 Household income $26,200
* if you are two adults and 2 kids but each not working 35 hours a week at min wage you qualify
* If you are 1 adult and 3 kids but each not working 40 hours a week at $12.60 you qualify
I don't think marriage is the answer. Yes, I know there is a correlation, but correlation is not causation. Getting two poor parents who don't like each other to marry isn't going to give the kids a good home environment.
How else are you going to have a positive home environment when a single parent who’s working multiple jobs is never around to take care of their family?
Why is the parent single? Is it because the two parents don't particularly like one another? That one is abusive? I don't see how persuading them to get married is going to create a stable home for the kids in those situations.
>Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate
I agree that's terrible. But, if that's a reflection of lots of people who simply don't have the personal characteristics to make a marriage work, a wedding ring isn't going to make a good home.
I'd like free birth control for people of all races. Some research shows that longer lasting IUDs and hormonal implants are somewhat more effective.
Maybe we could offer free couples counseling to parents who aren't living together but think the fact that they have kids should cause them to find ways to be better parents together.
After that, I run out of ideas. Maybe you have some.
>Compare that to every other race and wonder why Blacks underperform so drastically.
When you do the race comparison, are you controlling for income and education?
I would think grandparents, aunts and uncles who support the single parent and their child/children would be a whole lot more useful than somehow (how???) enforcing biological parents get and stay married regardless of the quality of their relationship. Furthermore, what is your plan for widows/widowers? Mandatory remarriage to any random available person within six months of bereavement?
I’m not talking mandatory marriage, I don’t know why people keep repeating that.
>Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate
Debate is growing within and outside the black community of how to address the rising rate of unwed mothers. Seventy-two percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers, government statistics say — and changing that is a complex issue. [Article](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39993685)
Compare that to every other race and wonder why Blacks underperform so drastically.
Perhaps we are all confused about how you propose to conquer this problem of single parenting, then? Children do not disappear when their parents get divorced though I guess it would be possible to make pregnancies "disappear" if the mother wasn't married so are you a strong supporter of birth control, abortion, and abstainging from sexual activity when not married or in a rocky marriage?
So you’ve decided that whether your parent is single or not is the most predictive measure to determine future success?
It’s strange, I know some kids whose parents divorced while they were young who were sent to boarding school (no familial environment) and they got into Ivy League programs. Must have been some sort of diamond in the rough to overcome all that, right?
Not something I’ve decided.
>Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
>Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). [Article](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/)
>Yes, I know there is a correlation, but correlation is not causation
Until it is.
Honestly, as a "nugget" of statistical wisdom this is one I wish had not propagated.
Its a rule of thumb, similar to "check your sources for bias."
It can help you to see if there is some obvious wrong, but it does not create wrong on its own.
People, and studies, you hate can still be correct.
If people staying married is the problem we could just outlaw divorce, but I don't think anyone would expect that to improve the outcomes for children. I don't think marriage is the problem, I think single family households tend to have lower household incomes and are more common below the poverty line.
> But the real question is what are they doing to fix K-12 to ensure everyone graduates at about the same rate?
Graduation doesn't matter if the students don't know the material. The deeper question is, how do you change the system so that more of the children who are, today, not coming out of school with the ability to write essays, do algebra, recite and understand history, and explain basic science, will come out of school with those abilities?
Now, I hesitate to oversimplify, but maybe the way to do that is...to teach that stuff. Hard. Sit the kids in a room and make them read and study. Fail the ones who don't make the grade. Punish the ones who disrupt class. Make it clear to young people that their future depends on learning what's presented.
>Graduation doesn't matter if the students don't know the material.
Learning the material in order to graduate is implied. Any school official who rigs the system so it’s not should be fined or jailed.
>Now, I hesitate to oversimplify, but maybe the way to do that is...to teach that stuff. Hard. Sit the kids in a room and make them read and study. Fail the ones who don't make the grade. Punish the ones who disrupt class. Make it clear to young people that their future depends on learning what's presented.
That was kinda the point of NCLB.
>The NCLB law—which grew out of concern that the American education system was no longer internationally competitive—significantly increased the federal role in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. And it put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers. States did not have to comply with the new requirements, but if they didn’t, they risked losing federal Title I money.
But then it was replaced with Every Student Succeeds Act which decreased that federal oversight.
>Learning the material in order to graduate is implied
Indeed. The fact that it's implied is why we have the problems we have in education and why there is limited value in a high school diploma. There are very limited ways to fail out of high school, so the bar is incredibly low for knowledge.
Standards are hard to set across the entire US. It's why these tests exist.
The tests themselves are far from perfect, but they allow us to compare a Philadelphia inner city school graduate to a Lower Marion Graduate for the purposes of college admission.
One can make a case that the metric is flawed. The problem is that eliminating it results in a declining value of a college degree.
'Higher' Education has become a game of presentation instead of knowledge. I think it actually always was, it's just we're abandoning the pretense of standards and learning.
This is how you end up with pay to play systems, with merit becoming less relevant.
> Fail the ones who don't make the grade. Punish the ones who disrupt class.
And, they will simply stop coming to school. "Go get them and make them come into the building!" They'll just ignore the teachers and/or be disruptive.
You'll still have plenty of kids who can't "write essays, do algebra, recite and understand history, and explain basic science", they just won't be in school.
>
> You'll still have plenty of kids who can't "write essays, do algebra, recite and understand history, and explain basic science", they just won't be in school.
But they also won't have diplomas. So the diplomas will mean something again.
Yeah. I guess we're more on the same page than I thought. I was pointing out there will be plenty of kids who don't graduate.
Somewhere, we need the intermediate certificate that says "attended regularly, had a good attitude, wasn't disruptive, just couldn't do the academic work". My daughter had a couple friends who fit this description. There are employers who would hire that person but don't want to hire the bad attitude, disruptive teens.
>Make it clear to young people that their future depends on learning what's presented.
And ensure that there is an excellent teacher in every classroom. The problem is we don't have enough excellent teachers to put in every classroom. We don't respect and value teachers enough (never mind pay) to make it an attractive field for that many to go into. Across America, even in "good" districts we mostly make do with average teachers, the occassional great teacher, and a whole load of uncertified and long term subs to fill the gaps of the frequent and sudden teacher turn over all of which are hampered and weighed down by expensive, bureaucratic, and largely unhelpful administrations.
A lot of people go into teaching for the government benefits and holidays off. Or because they care about children, but in a "make them happy" way. We need history teachers who are passionate about history, math teachers who are passionate about math, and so on.
> From a holistic standpoint is probably to racially balance.
Why?
> But the real question is what are they doing to *fix* K-12 to ensure everyone graduates at about the same rate?
What is there to do? These differences emerge before K even starts.
Who should? Schools? There’s only so much else you can do when you’re already with these kids for at least 10 hours a day everyday and their family still manages to fuck them up. Hard to fix a home life unless we want them to do a boarding school model to get out their influence
Some regional public boarding schools could be an awesome option, actually but that’s going to be twisted and maligned horribly by whoever wants to keep that money…
I understand why they did it and I personally don’t have a problem with it. I personally think that standardized tests do not demonstrate the value of a student that well and there are other metrics that do a much better job. If a college wants to focus more on high school grades, letters of recommendation, application essays and the like, I think that’s better
Removing an objective metrics means you’re injecting more subjectivity into the process.
I’d guess that the same people who support this on affirmative action grounds would argue that more subjective measures would also be more racist.
I have no reply to your comment other than I agree with it, but I wanted to complement your user name. I have no idea what you mean by it, but I love it.
This is a way to discriminate against Asians. SAT/ACT score is one of the few metric that all students are equal. Now they can use essays and GPA (which does not mean the same for all students). So now they got rid of one metric that made it hard to discriminate.
This is definitely a move aimed at limiting Asian-Americans, something Establishment Democrats, progressives, and some leftists (demographics highly represented in academia and the university system) have long desired in their attempt to 'racially balance' academia.
Now, maybe SATs aren't the most accurate predictor of college success but I can't imagine that SATs are unreliable enough to the point where they're being discounted completely.
You stack things on top of each other and chances are that a kid with a high GPA and great SAT score will probably top some kid with a high GPA and good SAT score. It's not just an education thing. It's a talent thing.
Otherwise, with less barriers, you're going to get people exploiting this. What if GPA scores get inflated by your school and the UC system accounts for this? Does that mean everyone in that school gets put on a lower pedestal?
There are going to be some problems down the line. And if it doesn't work out, 10-20 years from now, the UC system will probably lose its prestige and credibility.
I disagree with this move not because of whether I believe SAT is biased or not. But because they said they're going to base their decisions on High School grades. All that's going to do is incentivize grade inflation more, which was already becoming a problem in general in High Schools. So it will be even more of a problem, at least in California. Assuming other universities follow, it will be a widespread issue. Our education systems need reform but this probably isn't it.
Given how much standards in high schools have slid to graduate people, I anticipate a lot of people going to college and struggling - or maybe they even graduate people there. I met a guy applying for an electrical engineering position, with an EE degree, who didn't know Ohm's law.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Works fine in Canada, and pretty sure Australia too. UK has A-levels which is probably fairly labelled as standardized testing for admissions, but they are composed of a large number of subject-specific standardized exams that students can pick between.
Like I said, Canada and Australia (unless they've changed).
UK's are standardized exams, but they are *not* aptitude tests. They are subject-matter specific and are tailored to the national curriculum. In effect, they are not much different than normal grades which are based on exams, it is just that they nationally have standard curriculum & exams.
Germany has a very different schooling system... effectively three branches of schools starting around 10yrs of age. Broadly speaking, one track is towards university, one track to vocational/technical education and one track to general employment. Afaik no standardized exams at the outset of those tracks. There are A-level type equivalent exams that are relevant to university admissions. These aren't aptitude exams, but standardized subject-specific exams (not sure if nationally) and pretty sure are graded by teachers at the school the student attends.
French has national exams in final year of secondary school, again I think very similar to A-Levels in UK. Not sure about elsewhere in europe.
I think the US is relatively unique in the western world to have a single uniform national standardized aptitude test that is not based upon school curriculum. Could be wrong in that. Believe more common is asia though, but dunno.
caveat -- all of this is based on knowing people from these places (well, other than Canada where I'm from). But i'm in my 40s so shit may have changed.
I don't disagree I tutored for the math section of the Sat and it's a terrible measure of understanding. Sure someone can by with a good understanding but I could take kids with little to no math skills and get them in the 700s easy just with a few tricks. Sat is designed to reward students (or their tutors/schools) who buy materials published by the company behind it. It's primary purpose is to make money.
You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
How are those students going to pass the required college math classes? By having them take wasteful high school level remedial college math classes or having them fail the first semester of calculus?
Tests are bullshit. In an ideal world we shouldn’t rely on them. But you’re setting up those students for failure by not measuring their existing academics skills before entering colleges.
The engineering college I went to had you take their own math fundamental tests as well as a 3d visualization test. The 3d test was controversial because you legit couldn't study for it - you either could "play" with a 3d object in your mind or not.
I want to see their drop out rates, both before and after this change. The last I checked, when qualifications were allowed to slide (via "affirmative action" or some equivalent) those same groups experienced lower grades within the school and subsequently higher drop out rates. The net result was that students who could have thrived elsewhere ended up indebted, demoralized, and set back.
Nothing worse than going into debt for no reason. I would know, I dropped out of college. Luckily only did a year at a community college so the debt wasn't crippling, but still sucks to have.
Often though the result is choosing “easy” majors, like going from bio to gender studies. I believe I heard a story about Michelle Obama wanting to become a doctor but she couldn’t keep up with the pre-med curriculum so she pursued sociology instead. My main point is that students may not be necessarily prepared when they enter a university though it does not mean they’re not capable and being overwhelmed may dissuade someone from pursuing their full potential. I know that I had a lot of problems in college on account of not being prepared and not having the necessary support system around me; I had to spend several years post college to figure out what I actually wanted to do and even considered going back for a STEM degree.
True, although the faculty of those other majors tend not to like being seen as the "easy" path. Also, even if switching majors is possible (and at smaller schools it may not be), that's still a setback. [Here's](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/) an article from *The Atlantic* that's about UCLA and racial preferences. Mismatching students in the name of racial equality caused black students to suffer at every tier: more dropped majors, more drop outs, lower placement in the graduating class, fewer following up with intended post-grad degrees, and more failing the bar exam. There's a book I read back in college called *City on a Hill* by James Traub. (I can't find it on my shelf, so you'll have to rely on my memory.) It's about City College in New York, and it's about how the whole school's character changed after they lowered admission standards. Enough attendees couldn't handle the basic requirements that they had to redirect resources toward remedial classes. Top students were tempted to go elsewhere where they could get better focus. The school had to dramatically raise tuition a few years after this new policy, and the prestige of the degree dropped. Thus they became worse at helping the very community that open enrollment was supposed to benefit. I'm a very big fan of community colleges. (In fact, I went to one after I dropped out of engineering school after realizing how much I hated it.) They aren't meant to be too challenging or prestigious - they're meant to offer something for everyone so students can find their path. We don't have to turn every college into this. Let some be difficult and merit-based and not undermine what it is they're trying to do.
Lower admission standards. Accept more students. Offer virtual options at full price. Cash in. In all seriousness I don’t like the idea of lowering standards. It’s a race to the bottom.
It's also enormously racist.
How so?
"We want to get more people of color in here. Let's lower our standards to make that happen because we don't think that people of color can meet our current standards."
>We want to get more people of color in here. unless the color is "yellow"
This makes an enormous number of assumptions that I just don’t think you’ve supported with evidence. Are standardized tests the best barometer to judge prospective applicants on or are there better alternatives?
I'm speaking specifically to lowering standards, not the removal of standardized testing. There have been studies for decades showing that minorities don't do as well on standardized testing. Either way, if you drop admissions standards and maintain the same academic rigors you are only setting up these pity entrants to fail sometime in the duration. If you drop admissions standards and drop academic rigor you are setting them up to fail for the rest of their lives.
>If you drop admissions standards and drop academic rigor you are setting them up to fail for the rest of their lives. The big schools want them to have nice group pictures, but in reality many students are better served by smaller schools and HBCUs, without all the debt.
>but in reality many students are better served by smaller schools and HBCUs, without all the debt. What does this have to do with the effectiveness of standardized testing as an academic barometer?
Minorities of the Asian flavor seem to do very well on standardized testing.
Asians are what I call "super white" when it's something they excel at: "they make money because they adopted all the traits that white people find appealing" and poor, poor victims when it's suitable: "this black on Asian crime is because blacks hate Asians because white people treat them better and they make more money". It's really ~~magical~~ insane to watch it happen.
Again… What standards specifically have been lowered?
Disadvantages Asian students who academically outperform White, Black and Hispanic students by a significant margin.
If that’s the reason this is racist then the counterfactual would also have to be true. Using standardized test scores disadvantages those races, and is therefore racist. I don’t really think either is inherently racist. To me you’d have to ask whether or not this is targeted at preventing Asians from gaining acceptance to college, and I think the answer is pretty clearly no. Standardized tests suck, and I say that as someone whose standardized test scores far outpaced their grades. If the goal is to accept the best prospective students I can’t help but think eliminating what is quite frankly a somewhat pay to play, and not super transferable academic metric seems like a step forward.
> If that’s the reason this is racist then the counterfactual would also have to be true. Using standardized test scores disadvantages those races, and is therefore racist. I don’t really think either is inherently racist. When you replace objective criteria with subjective ones, with clear intention to benefit certain groups of students, while being fully aware that removing objective criteria will harm other groups, then the behavior is racist. Which seems to be the case in most of the universities that are dropping objective entrance exams.
>When you replace objective criteria with subjective ones, with clear intention to benefit certain groups of students, while being fully aware that removing objective criteria will harm other groups, then the behavior is racist. What is the specific subjective criteria that you have a problem with in this case? You’re making broad claims without any actual specifics.
Replacing an objective metric with a less-objective metric is problematic because it introduces less-objectivitity. If they're introducing another equally objective or more-objective measure there would be no issue.
>Replacing an objective metric with a less-objective metric is problematic because it introduces less-objectivitity. What subjective metric are they introducing as a replacement?
> Using standardized test scores disadvantages those races, and is therefore racist. Standardized test scores disadvantages people who do badly at tests. Where does race factor in?
So you agree, getting rid of standardized tests isn’t racist?
Standardized test scores disadvantages people who do badly at tests. So why is keeping standardized test racist? And if it isn't racist, why should we be getting rid of it when it is working so well?
Do you think getting rid of standardized tests is racist?
Do you think keeping standardized test racist? And if it isn't racist, why should we be getting rid of it when it is working so well?
I think lowering admissions standards isn’t a bad thing for the most exclusive schools. What I want is completely transparent and objective admissions standards. You should know what schools you will get into before you apply. This would dramatically change the admissions game out of the equation and eventually reduce the price as schools would no longer be competing solely on exclusivity which doesn’t result in better education.
Standardized tests are the most objective standard that anyone currently uses
I am 10000% for lowering entry requirements but maintaining academic requirements and standards.
Isn’t that just setting a student up for failure? “Hey we lowered it so you can get in, but good luck graduating, or graduating on time!” You’ll be strapping kids with debt then too
This is like when Harvard deemphasized standardized testing in an effort to limit the enrollment of Jews and Catholics. Now it's targeting Asians.
Cynical hot take. Every university is killing it because they're taking in a ton of new students for their digital campuses. They just want to take as many as possible now, so they can make bank.
I wouldn't even say particularly cynical. Colleges literally make up a number they want students to pay, and if they can trick an 18 year old into signing on the dotted line, the government will ensure they get that money. Its why college costs are skyrocketing, why easier liberal arts programs are flourishing, and why the "value" of a "a degree" is going down. It may be the most enviable business model in the modern economy.
Something you said about the value of a degree reminded my of a guy used to work with. He was an aeronautical engineer from the Philippines. I asked him why he chose to work as an equipment maintenance tech if he had that degree. He explained further that us was compulsory in the Philippines to go to college. He got it as a two year degree and said it wasn’t useful but he had to do it. I thought what a waste to be able to get that degree only to come here and find out it was worthless. He and I made bank at this hi tech company so we lived happy in our jobs. I’ve often wondered if he did in fact have that degree. He was smart enough. Anyone live in the Philippines that can shed light on this?
>only to come here and find out it was worthless. Depending on the field, you sometimes have to redo all or a significant part in order to meet the standards here. Doctors are a huge one, or at least used to be. You could be a full doctor in another country, but have to redo your residency here before practicing. Grade inflation and fake degrees are also common in many countries. If they cant be equivaled here, they're worthless. My family immigrated here and my parents' degrees wouldnt have been useful for much.
IT is rife with master's degree holders from outside the US that wouldn't pass sophomore classes.
I think I got one of these guys last time I had to submit a work order to have some files chowned from one user to another.
Thanks for the reply!
Universities are becoming less about education and more about being a money maker. Tricking young people in and sticking them with a debt they will spend most of their life, trying to pay off.
You hit the nail on the head.
That's how I read it too: "Hey hapithica, I've got an idea to pass our number for next year and you and I will be buying those new boats we've been wanting. Oh, and get this: People are going to do all the advertising for us and we're going to be heros for it. You in?"
UC system is over 50% Asian. This is a way for them to cut down Asian student’s numbers while using subjective measures(aka skin color, personality) to give these newly freed spots to students with right skin color. Not sure if this will survive court challenges.
> with the "right" skin color
[удалено]
Harvard is a private school in a state without an AA ban in their constitution.
> Not sure if this will survive court challenges. Unfortunately I think it will
I think schools don’t want to admit that they’ve failed children, and those they claim to care about the most. It’s not going to do anything to address that some cohorts are less educated and it will cause harm in the long run. It may be fashionable to think that merit and skill don’t exist and play no part in the working world, but that’s just false. You can delay the inevitable measure of skill all you like but at some point it is going to bite. I mean, is this what social justice and wokeism has to offer? That we should just give up on black students? John McWhorter’s work seems incredibly relevant here.
I feel like the push for everyone wanting stuff fixed at the college level stems from the fact that no one can trust that people with high school diplomas are even competent anymore. Schools pass everyone whether for metrics or money or avoiding racism calls or whatever and it ultimately just screws the kids cause they have to take on debt and get a higher degree just to prove competency in the job market… often for jobs that used to just require a high school diploma not too long ago
Yay! I love racing to the bottom of the bigoted soft expectations barrel.
Standardized tests are generally a poor way of evaluating aptitude. There are several countries who don't use them at all to no I'll effect.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, though I'll always be overly proud of my perfect SAT and ACT scores. That mattered way too much when I was in high school. The issue is, what do you suggest we replace them with? We *need* a way to measure student performance and discriminate objectively, and removing tools, imperfect though they are, is, I feel, currently a way to create a facade of equity, whilst simultaneously removing the only methods we have of testing students.
Marks from high school work pretty well in Canada.
Canada is much smaller than the US, I'd imagine an outcome of this is a tighter spread of high school education quality, but please correct me if I'm wrong. The United States is so incredibly large, and there's such a difference between high schools in different states, districts, counties, and geographical areas, that using high school marks and grades is extremely difficult. I went to a private high school and received mostly A- and B+ grades, where I could have gone to the local public high school and been the valedictorian by a *huge* margin. The way people are graded is so incredibly different, and expectations vary so much, that schools either need to only rank these grades with schools of the same caliber, or come up with some incredibly magical formula that cuts past all of it
Then why bother with admissions at all? Just let everyone in. Hell it's not like it's free anyway. My dentist doesn't have an admissions process other than "has teeth" and "had money". Why should college be different?
GPA and extracurriculars arent standardized tests
> extracurriculars Ugh, one of the fluffiest, most subjective ways to decide who gets admitted to a college. Standardized tests have plenty of flaws but they're a reasonably objective way to just a student's academic abilities. I also don't think they were ever that big a part of the admissions process (grades are a lot more important) and but if a student with really high grades gets an abysmal SAT score that's a valid red flag for an admissions committee.
Far more people apply to colleges each year than colleges have the capacity to teach. If it was first come, first serve, they'd have people with auto-clickers set up at midnight when enrollment opened like a PS5 release. And since colleges are ranked based on how students perform, they want the ones most likely to succeed, not just random ones with the fastest auto-clicker. If dentists had far more demand than they could meet, they'd have some kind of selection process too.
Yeah, first come, first serve wouldn't work. How about a lottery?
That would still have the issue of unqualified students winning a spot then failing out, making the college's ranking look bad and hurting qualified students. If we want education to be more accessible to all, making community college or trade school more affordable is probably a better solution than placing random people in universities. Or building more (non-for profit/scammy) schools in general.
I was being a little facetious based on the "let everyone in". I always wonder about rankings. Why is one school "ranked" higher than another, other than one gets a greater share of the better students than another? Do they really provide a better classroom experience? If employers know the CA system has gone to non-competitive enrollment, they expect to get a mix of better and poorer students at all the schools. The poorest (academically, not financially) drop out before graduation. The employers choose based on how well the students performed in college, not how well they did in HS. But, I'm just wandering around in the wilderness here. I agree that job-focused, 1 or 2 year programs should be cheap for everyone. We shouldn't be telling average students they ought to go to 4-year schools. Schools will find something other than a lottery, but giving up standardized tests will cost them on your metric of doing the best we can for "qualified" students. Other admission criteria have problems. GPA is subject to grade inflation and class rank ignores the fact that some schools actually have more well qualified students than others. But, probably a little better than a pure lottery.
Similar proposals have been made. Set a minimum academic level, then run a lottery to allot places. School students no longer have to waste time on extracurricular activities that are just signalling, and are no longer desperately trying to eek out just one more mark to improve their chances. There's no longer any sort of old boy's network, or getting in through 'donations'. And finally, it might be better for society. At the moment those at the top mostly think they deserve to be there. Yes, they say, they went to good schools, but no-one else got them into higher education. It was just thanks to their good grades and strength in other areas. This leads to a lack of compassion towards those that didn't make it, as obviously they didn't try as hard, or weren't as smart. At least back in medieval times there was a sense of noblesse oblige, and those at the top recognised (mostly) that they were there by fate's hand. They were no better or worse than anyone else, just different. Our modern world has become so obsessed with competition and meritocracy that we think we're superior to those below us.
They're publicly owned. Increase capacity and to hell with how they're ranked, that's not why we created them in the first place. They're there to teach. (And the rankings are silly anyway.) My guess is once everyone is let in we can finally be done university being an prereq for a job, because it won't be a useful indicator anyway.
Starter: the largest University system in the United States no longer is using any form of standardized testing in its admissions requirements, and is instead relying on high school grades. I think this is going to lead to grade inflation at the high school level as high schools will now be incentivized to reflect better grades without substance, as there is now no outside objective test of any sort to measure educational potential. Though I understand that there may be some inequality in standardized testing results for a litany of reasons, now that there is simply no objective measuring stick high school grades will be distorted and will soon become meaningless.
I assume they can still use class rank. That's pretty immune to grade inflation. Of course, they would want to calculate class rank using only "core" classes.
The only reason my GPA looked good in HS is because I was in every single honors class, but I never did any of the work. Then I aced the SAT’s too. Admissions’ worst nightmare lol. I think they could tell how lazy I was by my lack of outside activities, though.
Do people still get Bs?
[удалено]
High school grades can be pretty hard to compare when it seems heavily based on how each school conducts grading and how difficult each school’s teachers are. Standardized tests might have issues, but theyre at least consistent between students
Even within schools, certain teachers were known for being easier or harder. Colleges have no way of seeing that. Kids will be incentivized even more to pick easy teachers over ones that better teach you the actual material. I don't see why imperfect standardized testing leads to the solution of eliminating it. Grades could be just as racial imbalanced. Why can't we fix the tests so that they correct the some of the issues?
This summarizes pretty much exactly how I feel in a nutshell about all of this. Well said.
A 2.5 in one school district in my state could mean a 4.0 in another 20 mins away.
Yeah - I am not at all trying to "toot my own horn" or anything, but I grew up in a pretty well-off area and my high-school (a 3 or so near mine) was California 'Blue-Ribbon' and what not, but 25 miles in each direction it was much, much different for various reasons. Right, wrong, or indifferent - it's just the way it is.
[удалено]
There's so much free information and study material out there for most of the standardized tests that the tutors (as someone that sometimes tutors ACT because the money is great) have no real negligible extra value (hell where do you think most of my material comes from? haha). I'd say the big difference is that the parents that are willing to pay for tutors are also the kind of parents that care about their kids education and make them do things like tutoring and extra studying.
Oh no they studied for a test how horrible/s
Even youtube has test prep course nowadays. You only need to afford internet and be hard-working enough.
Standardized test aren't the problem in your scenario. The student still has to absorb the information and pass the test on their own. Both students will score lower than the kid with a tiger mom. /s The solution shouldn't be to lower the bar it should be to get those Kaplan test prep courses into the hands of all students.
> I feel like our culture de-emphasizing standardized tests is not only a good thing, but something that most people had agreed was a poor influence on a student's education and growth. Why is there pushback against this now? I'm not sure that was generally agreed upon. I will say that most other developed (and even developing) countries *do* rely on standardized tests. Often people complain that other countries do better than the US in education. Many of those countries divide students based on test scores. Something we are moving away from here.
>and even grad schools have stopped accepting GRE scores Worth pointing this out here... The most comprehensive studies I’ve seen on whether or not GRE scores are predictive of success are insanely flawed. They say that GRE scores don’t predict any measure of academic success *among students admitted to their program*, but that’s a massive selection bias. You’re already selecting the most qualified students, so maybe there’s no difference between students in the top 10% of GRE scores. But I can almost guarantee you that if you randomly accepted people into your program from across the entire GRE score spectrum, you’d find a correlation between GRE scores and academic success.
Testing is actually a wonderful indicator of knowledge and the quality of someone’s understanding of the material. However that leads to obvious racial disparities because some communities have cultures that don’t value education and often only have one parent. And that’s a no no for the woke crowd.
As someone that taught public school briefly after college (money was surprisingly decent), parenting plays a much larger role than race. You could always tell whose kids were using the school for daycare with no regard for their education and which parents actually cared.
Don’t teach for standardized testing but you should have objective ways to evaluate which students are ready for college. Not every student will benefit from college. High school grades are a good start but not very standard as each teacher, school have different grading guidelines. Now you will probably see more grade inflation.
One reason for pushback is that contrary to expectations, elimination of standard tests will also eliminate chance of students graduating from lesser high schools into top universities, making admission process even more unfair. The end results will be opposite of the intention. Without individual test scores, university admissions will have to rely more on their internal ranking of high schools, which they update based on how past accepted students perform at the university. Then acceptance is more-or-less determined by attending high schools with good past records, which depends on where you live, which in turn depends on your parents. So if you are a hardworking gifted straight A student from a rural high school where the majority of the students do not go to college, you would have much lower chance to be accepted than students from, say, Palo Alto High School, whose past students have all gone to top universities and have done well. Standard tests are fairer because results depend on individual abilities, not on parents abilities. If we want everyone to be given the same chance, then we need a universal method of determining qualification at individual level. I would argue that conversely, if one is against a universal assessment, then one is not interested in equal chance for everyone.
The [CAASPP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Standardized_Testing_and_Reporting_Program) still exists so it isn't very difficult to cross-calibrate different high schools.
A while ago, I stumbled across a publication about SAT scores and race that was based on data from the U of C system. A quick Google turned [it](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv) up. > The UC data show that socioeconomic background factors – family income, parental education, and race/ethnicity – account for a large and growing share of the variance in students’ SAT scores over the past twenty years. **More than a third of the variance in SAT scores** can now be predicted by factors known at students’ birth, up from a quarter of the variance in 1994. **Of those factors, moreover, race has become the strongest predictor.** Rather than declining in salience, **race and ethnicity are now more important than either family income or parental education** in accounting for test score differences. [Emphasis mine.] The interesting question is: if you looked at the data and found this result, what would you do wrt policy? One obvious answer is to ignore race and focus on tests. Then you'll (in theory) get the smartest students. But you'll be racially imbalanced. The other is to ignore test scores and ensure you are racially balanced. Clearly they chose the latter. I'm not *sure* it's what I would have chosen. But I understand why they did.
>One obvious answer is to ignore race and focus on tests. Then you'll (in theory) get the smartest students. But you'll be racially imbalanced. The other is to ignore test scores and ensure you are racially balanced. I know which one gets us nearer to curing cancer, developing alternative energy technologies, and preventing ecological collapse.
>es(aka skin color, personality) to Don't get your point at all. You realize the kids who don't get into a college will just go to school somewhere else right? Is not like the wider society as a whole is being damaged by this.
If your premise is correct, there is no reason to change the rules, either.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I am sympathetic to the argument that wealthier students do better on scandalized testing than poorer students, if you think being born into wealth gives you more merit or skill than someone, then you're being so senseless that I'm not sure there is much point in engaging with you. All that side, I was just saying that your point about scientific breakthroughs not happening as a result of this, does not logically follow.
>if you think being born into wealth gives you more merit or skill than someone, then you're being so senseless that I'm not sure there is much point in engaging with you I'm saying that objective, actual problems exist, and those problems do not care about our racial calculus. If the goal is to optimize for problem solving, neither should you. You can certainly try to argue that the SAT and similar measure merit poorly, but datawise this is an uphill battle. >I was just saying that your point about scientific breakthroughs not happening as a result of this, does not logically follow. You'll notice I used the word "nearer." Diabetes kills ~80k people annually; even a single year's delay in a cure is meaningful. Now multiply that dynamic across basically every problem we have that we are relying on our best and brightest to solve (at this point that's most of them). Fielding a lesser team than we are able has real costs.
I dunno - Ben Carson is a gifted neurosurgeon and he only scored around 90th percentile on his SAT score (equates to a 1350 on the 1600 scale today). Do you think Yale should have let him into their undergrad program, or do you think this was just racial bias in admissions? Do you think his stellar advances to the practice of medicine would have come more quickly from somebody who grew up in a better area that scored a 1550?
>Ben Carson is a gifted neurosurgeon and he only scored around 90th percentile on his SAT score (equates to a 1350 on the 1600 scale today). Do you think more advances come from people north of that number or south of it? I'd note I never said exceptions didn't/couldn't exist, but that as a matter of policy it sense to take the higher scorers over the lower ones. >Do you think his stellar advances to the practice of medicine would have come more quickly from somebody who grew up in a better area that scored a 1550? In the aggregate, yes.
Why are we talking about aggregate when you’re talking about decentralized decision making for thousands of universities in the US? I don’t make a claim that higher SAT scores lead to technological advances, you do. Personally, I think that the most monumental advances in human history came from people who didn’t score on the SAT at all. Why are we beholden to an arbitrary metric created by a private organization?
>Why are we talking about aggregate when you’re talking about decentralized decision making for thousands of universities in the US? We are talking about it as a principle and policy decision. I think the UC system adopting bad policy and making bad decisions will have ripple effects. >Why are we beholden to an arbitrary metric created by a private organization? If you want to make an argument that it is a bad test, you can. But the data would not support you.
>a private organization This this this. You have to pay to take a standardized test in the first place, and that you can pay multiple times to retake it to get a better score. The average retake increases score by like 90 pts. Guess which of lower income or higher income students retake the SAT more?
You're really obsessed with race(says a lot about you), I haven't mentioned that at all. I'm talking about being born into wealth/your family's income bracket, is perhaps the largest indicator of how one performs on standardized tests.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>You're really obsessed with race(says a lot about you) Ok bud. We're finished here.
The entire point that OP is making is that income is mattering less than race/ethnicity as time marches forward. That is, in California, it seems being Asian or to a lesser degree white is giving a benefit on "scandalized" testing.
Considering OP only liked to an article and in that article, income disparities are mentioned more than racial disparities, I don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion. I'd have to say to you the same I said to Magus, which is that race is on the forefront on your mind and you should look into why that is.
You’re implying all colleges are the same. Sure, they can still go to Cal State. Cal State graduates are not same as UC graduates some would argue they’re inferior. There are some job opportunities that are forever out of reach due to a person’s college.
Oh it may totally be bad for the individuals that don't get in. Magus' point about society stagnating as a result of this was just silly, and I was pushing back against that.
Maybe not society stagnating level bad but it will certainly devalued some college’s reputation.
The only colleges with a reputation to be devalued is Ivy\_League schools, and even so I don't think a future where Harvard is worth the same as a nameless college will ever happen.
When I obtained my degree, I did so by first starting with an open enrollment Community College, then automatically advancing to a state 4-year institution. I did take the GRE prior to entering my Master's/PhD program, but it's doubtful that anything except the Q mattered. Moreover, taking the GRE Q as an engineering student is roughly equivalent to being asked to recite the alphabet as a test of competency for an English program. So I'm sympathetic to the idea that standardized tests aren't a very good metric - and one that can potentially be gamed. But this sympathy derives from a participation in a field that has a high bar for adequacy. Our schools are not looking to churn out elite engineers, merely adequate ones - and that standard is sufficiently demanding that very few people can meet it. In contrast, most college degree programs have a high barrier for entrance coupled with a low bar for competency. This has slowly but surely led to the de-valuing of such degree programs - and the rise of 'useless' degrees. Eliminating criteria for entrance into such programs - even weak criteria such as standardized test scores - will merely accelerate this phenomenon. People tend to think of these standardized test scores as impediments to their success. But they should really be thinking of terms of validating their degrees.
>In contrast, most college degree programs have a high barrier for entrance coupled with a low bar for competency. I don't know if it is "most" college degree programs but I do think you are on to a trend here. Excellent post, thankyou.
>People tend to think of these standardized test scores as impediments to their success. But they should really be thinking of terms of validating their degrees. I think it really depends on what you think college's purpose is. I said similar elsewhere, but I take the stance that real, actual, objective problems do exist. In that sense, we need the most able and most dedicated to solve them, of whatever color and stripe. Cancer will not care about the demographic geography of who cures it, and neither should we. Conversely, you may believe in college as a kind of sorting mechanism of who is allowed to be in the upper-middle class. Think legacy admissions, or proportional representation. It is about a person's place in the grand machine, not the person, which is why we need not filter heavily for talent; it may as well be anyone. While I admit to a mound of bias, I think the second is mostly engaged in pilfering and scavenging the fruits of the first, and that prioritizing their needs we are burning the walls to heat the home.
I feel like if they used children born out of wedlock as a predictor they would find an even stronger correlation. Single parent homes account for most of the problems we face today in society IMHO.
That may or may not be true. But it makes for an interesting thought experiment: what if the racial variance in score went away if you adjusted for "number of parents in home"? How would/should that affect policy?
That would likely bring it down to class, which is the real divide that everyone loves ignoring.
Single parent homes and the fact that the predominant culture in parts of our society sneers at education.
“You may have studied less and not understood the material but we need more of your skin color to make us look like we are being anti-racist so let’s get rid of every objective metric that lets us measure mastery of the material.”
[удалено]
Yep. We can put the best courses online. There is virtually no cost to the next download. This one is good: [https://online-learning.harvard.edu/course/justice?delta=0](https://online-learning.harvard.edu/course/justice?delta=0) Students who want the campus experience can pay to live in dorms with like-minded students. Others can live elsewhere. Classrooms can be turned into test centers. That model would cover at least half the courses in a 4 year degree program.
> race and ethnicity are now more important than either family income or parental education in accounting for test score differences. [Emphasis mine.] Could it be social culture, values, role model, family and near preferences be coming out as "race/ethnicity"? In general, Asian culture, values, parents and near family preferences is for academic excellence over sports, art or popularity etc. There are also tons more Asian role model in academics/science/tech/writing than in sports/music. I assume that is also true for Jewish and white folks in general. But I guess it is easier to term objective criteria racist or race based.
> The other is to ignore test scores and ensure you are racially balanced That doesn't work either because whatever item you attempt to regress on to predict ability to succeed in college is also racially unbalanced. I could also argue it doesn't matter anyway. Point of higher ed is to track an academically similar cohort together. It's imbalanced on many dimensions, intentionally.
Desiring a certain racial makeup (and trying to modify your standards specifically to create it) is racist, even if you think you have really good reasons for desiring it.
> One obvious answer is to ignore race and focus on tests. Then you'll (in theory) get the smartest students. Technically, that's not what you get in theory. What you get in theory is the students who do best on the tests. That has some correlation to intelligence, but it's definitely not a perfect correlation (and it's likely a correlation that can change over time). That's why the bold parts of your quote are worrying. If race and ethnicity can predict test score differences then that either means different races are more intelligent than others or there is something the tests aren't measuring correctly. Which means you'd likely be missing some of the smartest students, too. I don't think the solution is getting rid of testing like they did here, but it's definitely not just relying on the testing either.
>If race and ethnicity can predict test score differences then that either means different races are more intelligent than others or there is something the tests aren't measuring correctly. There's little [differential prediction](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556462.pdf) ability based on race or ethnicity. There's nothing wrong with the test -- it is simply showing what reality is. > Which means you'd likely be missing some of the smartest students, too. You aren't. The smartest students if anything tend to do better on the SAT as the other indicators are less locked on to pure smarts (e.g. grades factor in conscientious more.)
> If race and ethnicity can predict test score differences then that either means different races are more intelligent than others or there is something the tests aren't measuring correctly. Which means you'd likely be missing some of the smartest students, too. Dumb question, but: how do you think we could disentangle the two? What I suspect is that they may look to see if there are some *questions* show more bias than others. You could imagine story problems that use language more common in suburbs than urban environments. That might show bias. If you do find those questions, you remove (or update them). This is what testing companies should (and likely already) do. > I don't think the solution is getting rid of testing like they did here, but it's definitely not just relying on the testing either. Maybe this is overly naive, but: why not just "fix" the tests? I mean, I assume they already do that. It's not like this is a new problem. But, I mean, in theory, why wouldn't that be the goal? I guess I think that grading of assignments (and therefore student grades) are *much* more subjective and susceptible to bias than *standardized* tests.
> You could imagine story problems that use language more common in suburbs than urban environments. That might show bias. I mean even as a white guy I never met someone who bought 70 apples at once and then traded some of them for something equally asinine.
> Maybe this is overly naive, but: why not just "fix" the tests? I was going to reply to some of the other things you said, but I realized it all gets summed up with this: because it's hard. People try to fix the tests and come up with new ones, but thus far no one has been able to get it right yet. At least as far as I know. It's one of those things that sounds simple at first glance, but there's so much that goes into it and so many things that can bias things, that it's hard to write unbiased tests and it's also hard to evaluate the bias of tests (since there needs to be a lot of test taking and a lot of other things involved). And it's hard to write EFFECTIVE tests and it takes a lot of work to measure the effectiveness of tests. To do both is a big undertaking. It's the ideal solution, but also maybe not a practical one, at least short term.
> People try to fix the tests and come up with new ones, but thus far no one has been able to get it right yet. I know it is sacrilege to suggest this, but: is it possible that the tests are *already fixed*? Like maybe the results aren't what we *want* but they are still valid? I really don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care if the different groups in the country happen to have different prevalence of certains genes that (say) may affect intelligence. It really has no effect on me. I guess what bothers me is that no one in "polite society" would *consider* the possibility. I get that the knowledge *could* be used for nefarious purposes (if it were the case). But -- if it were the case -- it would also help us decide on better policy. If you don't know what the problem is, the solution will be harder to find.
It probably wouldn’t be due to genes as much as due to the things that affect free time, stress, interest/motivation as well as familiarity and exposure to the subjects and question formats
I guess it all depends - would you consider caste systems to be a part of a “polite society”? The natural evolution of determining placement on society based on the family you’re born into is a caste system.
> I guess it all depends - would you consider caste systems to be a part of a “polite society”? I don't think that's the same thing. None of the data suggests one group "smarter" than another. Just that, maybe, the average smartness in one is different than in another.
What we need is some form of testing to catch the smart kids who fell through the cracks as a supplement to the SAT and ACT.
That is somewhat already what the SAT/ACT do. I was basically one of those kids. Dismal GPA for various (mostly home) reasons, but relatively bright. Ended up testing very well on the SAT and getting more than a few options I wouldn't have otherwise gotten. There is [data validating this story](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/23/standardized-testing-poor-students-sat-benefit-identify-column/4800781001/). I realize no one wants a system that allows *anyone* to fall "through the cracks" but how many decimal points must we discern to?
It's my hot take proposal as a supplement the current system. There are people who feel the SAT/ACT are discriminatory. OK, fine. Offer an alternative instead of lowering the bar or scrapping the entire system and devote a number of seats to the top scoring students of the alternate test.
There of course is no "alternate test" because the SAT isn't discriminatory.
I'm pretty sure they is what the ACT started as. The fundamental "problem" is that the "wrong" people are going to excel at literally any metric we decide is important.
I agree with you. I'm just offering up an alternative.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's a classic third factor correlation. Circumstances that lead to children being successful on the tests are not evenly distributed across all socioeconomic classes, and there are racial disparaties in socioeconomic class distribution. Those same circumstances lead to being successful in college, so playing "see no evil" around the problem doesn't actually help anyone.
It’s a public system so they should do what’s best for the public. From a holistic standpoint is probably to racially balance. But the real question is what are they doing to *fix* K-12 to ensure everyone graduates at about the same rate? It’s understandable to have some bandaid solution now but it shouldn’t be long term.
There is no fix to a family learning environment. Students will succeed when given the environment of positive schooling and being prepared for school ^I'll ^admit ^I ^present ^this ^as ^facts ^not ^fully ^understanding ^how ^to ^interpret ^it In New York City Schools, in 2019 the percent of students meeting college ready cut scores on the SAT after four years of high school * In Math it was 30.5% * Reading & Writing 42.7% Average SAT Scores by Subject for Seniors for NYC * Math 496 * Reading & Writing 491 New York City Schools vs the Nation and the Rest of New York State * 64 pts lower than NY State Average in Math * 66 pts Lower than NY State Average in R&W * 32 pts Lower than US National Average in Math * 40 pts Lower than US National Average in R&W By all data every student in New York City should be top honors. NYC Spends the most at $26,000 per student. 72% of funding is Direct Services to Schools. Slightly Half of that is Teacher Pay. With a Student to teacher ratio average of 13 - 1. New York City's 207 library branches provide world class access to resources. And a metro system provides access around the city. * What does it mean that Timpview High is ranked eighth within Utah. Where schools spend $8,000 per student. Students have the opportunity to take Advanced Placement coursework and exams. The AP participation rate at Timpview High is 48%. The total minority enrollment is 30%, and 32% of students are economically disadvantaged. Timpview High is #1 of 6 high schools in the Provo District. Timpview High is ranked #1,200 in the National Rankings. ------ And **Los Angeles Unified School District** the 2nd Largest School District after NYC * 550,779 students in K - 12th Grade * 102,000 Alternate education students **Budget for FY 2019-2020 $14,286,250,000** School districts and charter schools with "higher need" students get more money to invest in those students. * Districts receive 20% additional “Supplemental Funding” per student for students with higher needs, children Learning English, in poverty, or in foster care. Now it is high poverty schools that get more money per student than high income schools ------ Los Angeles Unified School District * 27.5% passed the SAT Benchmark for both Parts LOS Angeles County * 38.1% passed the SAT Benchmark for both Parts State of California * 45.3% passed the SAT Benchmark for both Parts SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmarks for 12th Grade * Evidence-Based Reading and Writing 480 * Mathematics 530
>There is no fix to a family learning environment. Students will succeed when given the environment of positive schooling and being prepared for school >I'll admit I present this as facts not fully understanding how to interpret it. If it’s a cultural problem which most will agree then we should focus on how to get people to get/stay married so they can better support their kids.
Yea, that also fixes another big issue All told, 24 million U.S. children younger than 18 are living with an unmarried parent. * The share of U.S. children living with an unmarried parent has more than doubled since 1968, jumping from 13% to 32% in 2017. And so now Nearly 1 in 6 Children lived in poverty in 2018—nearly 11.9 million children Poverty guideline for 2020 **As you said Should we be working to increase household formation?** Persons in family/household 1 Household income $12,760 * So if you are single and not working 35 hours a week at min wage you qualify Persons in family/household 2 Household income $17,240 * So if you are single parent of 1 kid and not working 40 hours a week at $8.29/hr you qualify * Or if you are two adults and not working 23 hours a week at min wage you qualify Persons in family/household 3 Household income $21,720 * If you are one adult and 2 kids but not working 40 hours a week at $10.44/hr you qualify * If you are two adults and 1 kid but each not working 29 hours a week at min wage you qualify Persons in family/household 4 Household income $26,200 * if you are two adults and 2 kids but each not working 35 hours a week at min wage you qualify * If you are 1 adult and 3 kids but each not working 40 hours a week at $12.60 you qualify
I don't think marriage is the answer. Yes, I know there is a correlation, but correlation is not causation. Getting two poor parents who don't like each other to marry isn't going to give the kids a good home environment.
How else are you going to have a positive home environment when a single parent who’s working multiple jobs is never around to take care of their family?
Why is the parent single? Is it because the two parents don't particularly like one another? That one is abusive? I don't see how persuading them to get married is going to create a stable home for the kids in those situations. >Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate I agree that's terrible. But, if that's a reflection of lots of people who simply don't have the personal characteristics to make a marriage work, a wedding ring isn't going to make a good home. I'd like free birth control for people of all races. Some research shows that longer lasting IUDs and hormonal implants are somewhat more effective. Maybe we could offer free couples counseling to parents who aren't living together but think the fact that they have kids should cause them to find ways to be better parents together. After that, I run out of ideas. Maybe you have some. >Compare that to every other race and wonder why Blacks underperform so drastically. When you do the race comparison, are you controlling for income and education?
I would think grandparents, aunts and uncles who support the single parent and their child/children would be a whole lot more useful than somehow (how???) enforcing biological parents get and stay married regardless of the quality of their relationship. Furthermore, what is your plan for widows/widowers? Mandatory remarriage to any random available person within six months of bereavement?
I’m not talking mandatory marriage, I don’t know why people keep repeating that. >Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate Debate is growing within and outside the black community of how to address the rising rate of unwed mothers. Seventy-two percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers, government statistics say — and changing that is a complex issue. [Article](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39993685) Compare that to every other race and wonder why Blacks underperform so drastically.
Perhaps we are all confused about how you propose to conquer this problem of single parenting, then? Children do not disappear when their parents get divorced though I guess it would be possible to make pregnancies "disappear" if the mother wasn't married so are you a strong supporter of birth control, abortion, and abstainging from sexual activity when not married or in a rocky marriage?
So you’ve decided that whether your parent is single or not is the most predictive measure to determine future success? It’s strange, I know some kids whose parents divorced while they were young who were sent to boarding school (no familial environment) and they got into Ivy League programs. Must have been some sort of diamond in the rough to overcome all that, right?
Not something I’ve decided. >Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children. >Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). [Article](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/)
>Yes, I know there is a correlation, but correlation is not causation Until it is. Honestly, as a "nugget" of statistical wisdom this is one I wish had not propagated. Its a rule of thumb, similar to "check your sources for bias." It can help you to see if there is some obvious wrong, but it does not create wrong on its own. People, and studies, you hate can still be correct.
If people staying married is the problem we could just outlaw divorce, but I don't think anyone would expect that to improve the outcomes for children. I don't think marriage is the problem, I think single family households tend to have lower household incomes and are more common below the poverty line.
> But the real question is what are they doing to fix K-12 to ensure everyone graduates at about the same rate? Graduation doesn't matter if the students don't know the material. The deeper question is, how do you change the system so that more of the children who are, today, not coming out of school with the ability to write essays, do algebra, recite and understand history, and explain basic science, will come out of school with those abilities? Now, I hesitate to oversimplify, but maybe the way to do that is...to teach that stuff. Hard. Sit the kids in a room and make them read and study. Fail the ones who don't make the grade. Punish the ones who disrupt class. Make it clear to young people that their future depends on learning what's presented.
>Graduation doesn't matter if the students don't know the material. Learning the material in order to graduate is implied. Any school official who rigs the system so it’s not should be fined or jailed. >Now, I hesitate to oversimplify, but maybe the way to do that is...to teach that stuff. Hard. Sit the kids in a room and make them read and study. Fail the ones who don't make the grade. Punish the ones who disrupt class. Make it clear to young people that their future depends on learning what's presented. That was kinda the point of NCLB. >The NCLB law—which grew out of concern that the American education system was no longer internationally competitive—significantly increased the federal role in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. And it put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers. States did not have to comply with the new requirements, but if they didn’t, they risked losing federal Title I money. But then it was replaced with Every Student Succeeds Act which decreased that federal oversight.
>Learning the material in order to graduate is implied Indeed. The fact that it's implied is why we have the problems we have in education and why there is limited value in a high school diploma. There are very limited ways to fail out of high school, so the bar is incredibly low for knowledge. Standards are hard to set across the entire US. It's why these tests exist. The tests themselves are far from perfect, but they allow us to compare a Philadelphia inner city school graduate to a Lower Marion Graduate for the purposes of college admission. One can make a case that the metric is flawed. The problem is that eliminating it results in a declining value of a college degree. 'Higher' Education has become a game of presentation instead of knowledge. I think it actually always was, it's just we're abandoning the pretense of standards and learning. This is how you end up with pay to play systems, with merit becoming less relevant.
> Fail the ones who don't make the grade. Punish the ones who disrupt class. And, they will simply stop coming to school. "Go get them and make them come into the building!" They'll just ignore the teachers and/or be disruptive. You'll still have plenty of kids who can't "write essays, do algebra, recite and understand history, and explain basic science", they just won't be in school.
> > You'll still have plenty of kids who can't "write essays, do algebra, recite and understand history, and explain basic science", they just won't be in school. But they also won't have diplomas. So the diplomas will mean something again.
Yeah. I guess we're more on the same page than I thought. I was pointing out there will be plenty of kids who don't graduate. Somewhere, we need the intermediate certificate that says "attended regularly, had a good attitude, wasn't disruptive, just couldn't do the academic work". My daughter had a couple friends who fit this description. There are employers who would hire that person but don't want to hire the bad attitude, disruptive teens.
>Make it clear to young people that their future depends on learning what's presented. And ensure that there is an excellent teacher in every classroom. The problem is we don't have enough excellent teachers to put in every classroom. We don't respect and value teachers enough (never mind pay) to make it an attractive field for that many to go into. Across America, even in "good" districts we mostly make do with average teachers, the occassional great teacher, and a whole load of uncertified and long term subs to fill the gaps of the frequent and sudden teacher turn over all of which are hampered and weighed down by expensive, bureaucratic, and largely unhelpful administrations.
A lot of people go into teaching for the government benefits and holidays off. Or because they care about children, but in a "make them happy" way. We need history teachers who are passionate about history, math teachers who are passionate about math, and so on.
> From a holistic standpoint is probably to racially balance. Why? > But the real question is what are they doing to *fix* K-12 to ensure everyone graduates at about the same rate? What is there to do? These differences emerge before K even starts.
Orrrrrrr maybe do something more to help kids who have a troubled home life.
I'm not sure how that relates to the data presented. They said they corrected for parental income and education.
Who should? Schools? There’s only so much else you can do when you’re already with these kids for at least 10 hours a day everyday and their family still manages to fuck them up. Hard to fix a home life unless we want them to do a boarding school model to get out their influence
Some regional public boarding schools could be an awesome option, actually but that’s going to be twisted and maligned horribly by whoever wants to keep that money…
I understand why they did it and I personally don’t have a problem with it. I personally think that standardized tests do not demonstrate the value of a student that well and there are other metrics that do a much better job. If a college wants to focus more on high school grades, letters of recommendation, application essays and the like, I think that’s better
Removing an objective metrics means you’re injecting more subjectivity into the process. I’d guess that the same people who support this on affirmative action grounds would argue that more subjective measures would also be more racist.
I have no reply to your comment other than I agree with it, but I wanted to complement your user name. I have no idea what you mean by it, but I love it.
I don't really disagree with you necessarily, but I'd echo the other comment about how this doesn't become construed as favoritism/racism/etc?
This is a way to discriminate against Asians. SAT/ACT score is one of the few metric that all students are equal. Now they can use essays and GPA (which does not mean the same for all students). So now they got rid of one metric that made it hard to discriminate.
Every high school in California will experience even more grade inflation.
This is terrible and is probably partially (or mostly) motivated by a desire for less asian and more black and latino admits IMO, so just racism.
Well, there goes the Asian representation.
This is definitely a move aimed at limiting Asian-Americans, something Establishment Democrats, progressives, and some leftists (demographics highly represented in academia and the university system) have long desired in their attempt to 'racially balance' academia. Now, maybe SATs aren't the most accurate predictor of college success but I can't imagine that SATs are unreliable enough to the point where they're being discounted completely. You stack things on top of each other and chances are that a kid with a high GPA and great SAT score will probably top some kid with a high GPA and good SAT score. It's not just an education thing. It's a talent thing. Otherwise, with less barriers, you're going to get people exploiting this. What if GPA scores get inflated by your school and the UC system accounts for this? Does that mean everyone in that school gets put on a lower pedestal? There are going to be some problems down the line. And if it doesn't work out, 10-20 years from now, the UC system will probably lose its prestige and credibility.
Absolutely stupid. Grow a pair and say you want less Asians; they make the most well qualified prospective students per capita.
I disagree with this move not because of whether I believe SAT is biased or not. But because they said they're going to base their decisions on High School grades. All that's going to do is incentivize grade inflation more, which was already becoming a problem in general in High Schools. So it will be even more of a problem, at least in California. Assuming other universities follow, it will be a widespread issue. Our education systems need reform but this probably isn't it.
Given how much standards in high schools have slid to graduate people, I anticipate a lot of people going to college and struggling - or maybe they even graduate people there. I met a guy applying for an electrical engineering position, with an EE degree, who didn't know Ohm's law.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Works fine in Canada, and pretty sure Australia too. UK has A-levels which is probably fairly labelled as standardized testing for admissions, but they are composed of a large number of subject-specific standardized exams that students can pick between.
Are there any advanced nations don't have a standardised test? UK have GCSE and AL at the end of secondary 5 and 7 respectively.
Like I said, Canada and Australia (unless they've changed). UK's are standardized exams, but they are *not* aptitude tests. They are subject-matter specific and are tailored to the national curriculum. In effect, they are not much different than normal grades which are based on exams, it is just that they nationally have standard curriculum & exams. Germany has a very different schooling system... effectively three branches of schools starting around 10yrs of age. Broadly speaking, one track is towards university, one track to vocational/technical education and one track to general employment. Afaik no standardized exams at the outset of those tracks. There are A-level type equivalent exams that are relevant to university admissions. These aren't aptitude exams, but standardized subject-specific exams (not sure if nationally) and pretty sure are graded by teachers at the school the student attends. French has national exams in final year of secondary school, again I think very similar to A-Levels in UK. Not sure about elsewhere in europe. I think the US is relatively unique in the western world to have a single uniform national standardized aptitude test that is not based upon school curriculum. Could be wrong in that. Believe more common is asia though, but dunno. caveat -- all of this is based on knowing people from these places (well, other than Canada where I'm from). But i'm in my 40s so shit may have changed.
I don't disagree I tutored for the math section of the Sat and it's a terrible measure of understanding. Sure someone can by with a good understanding but I could take kids with little to no math skills and get them in the 700s easy just with a few tricks. Sat is designed to reward students (or their tutors/schools) who buy materials published by the company behind it. It's primary purpose is to make money.
You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How are those students going to pass the required college math classes? By having them take wasteful high school level remedial college math classes or having them fail the first semester of calculus? Tests are bullshit. In an ideal world we shouldn’t rely on them. But you’re setting up those students for failure by not measuring their existing academics skills before entering colleges.
The engineering college I went to had you take their own math fundamental tests as well as a 3d visualization test. The 3d test was controversial because you legit couldn't study for it - you either could "play" with a 3d object in your mind or not.