lol! Me neither, alas. But I do think that’s what is at the bottom of the discussions here, because college is unfortunately so wrapped up in “who gets to do what” in our society (in a way it need not be, and should not be).
Right, I mean this is one of those funny examples where politics and values and ideologies get scrambled, because I do not think that most of the people now pounding the table for a test-based meritocracy with few other considerations realize that the closest thing we have to that in history is the system of imperial examination that lasted for nearly two thousand years in China (and influenced nearly everything, culturally, about contemporary ‘Western’ civil service). Nor do I think they’d really want kids subjected to the gaokao or JEE in contemporary China and India respectively (and in those countries, these systems are often seen as being so rigid and formulaic a test of intelligence that it limits intellectual creativity).
That’s why in my view — to quote the Chairman — we’d let a hundred flowers bloom, with colleges and universities mindful of their distinct missions, selecting for them, and then jobs/companies/industries hiring for their distinct purposes, and not just recruiting from the affinity networks of their alumni, and so on.
I agree with both of those things too, but we need to do a lot in society to fight back against the prestige networks from the college → post college phase. My friend, who just finished her PhD at MIT, did her master’s thesis on the insular hiring practices of tech companies — driven by a broader shift to no longer offering on-the-job training companies once did — and how that overwhelmed any of their so-called “diversity recruiting.” This is way more important a thing to do than restore the SAT everywhere.
Again, I think the research suggests widespread testing can often be used as one tool that has some blind spots and some things it can see clearly, and should be strategically deployed as such. I do think that some people misunderstand this and that’s why I share links that show the empirical effects of universal ACT/SAT in 11th grade, or universal G&T testing in middle school. But we do have to be mindful to make sure it doesn’t go off the rails in the other direction, and always what the kind of society we’re trying to build (with tests as a tool in the box) is.
Tests and Statistics of all kinds have been manufactured, manipulated and certainly used to perpetuate racist tropes throughout history - well beyond the context of immigration. As many are talking about historical examples here, take the study of black skull volumes being used to perpetuate intelligence tropes. If you think that’s all 19th century colonial history, a brief Google search turns up a peer reviewed article from 2003 stating that the most likely explanation of IQ is racial differences in brain volume (asian > white > black). Now that’s ridiculous and racist isn’t it?
So what if the SAT is just being taken as “one factor”. If it strongly correlates with privilege, grades, extracurriculars, SAT scores, you’re not adding more statistical power. That’s Stats 101. Including that factor is just fostering a political perception that privilege = superiority. And that sucks. Having a parent who drives an Audi also probably correlates with “success in college”. Should we pile on that one too? Do the privileged need even more “proof” of their superiority?
It’s hard to see so many crowing about the “return to meritocracy / sanity” when that “sanity” comes at the cost of willfully ignoring the obvious benefit of privilege. Whether that privilege is wealth or whether that privilege is savvy or whether that privilege is context. Thankfully, what is most likely - at least at the schools people like talking about here - is that SAT’s will simply be used to accept more underprivileged kids (with somewhat lower SAT scores but high for their context) and reject more privileged kids (who can’t pass muster with the 1550 standard from a rich suburb). And to that end, the arguments are really reversed, and thankfully so.
Critics correctly note that standardized tests are not an unbiased measure of students’ qualifications, as students from higher-income families often have greater access to test prep and other resources,” Chetty said in a statement Thursday. “But the data reveal that other measures — recommendation letters, extracurriculars, essays — are even more prone to such biases. Considering standardized test scores is likely to make the admissions process at Harvard more meritocratic while increasing socioeconomic diversity
So all the admissions staff are aware of the bias and consider scores in the context of the individual student. They are trained to look into it.
I was reading on another thread by alumni on reddit where they were complaining that some of the students from UCB were not up to the mark since they became TO. If colleges don’t use objective criteria the industry will start having their own standards before employing those grads.
At Einstein’s museum in Bern, I saw that his Algebra score was in single digits when he was in University. They have a display of score that particular report. I am sure there were other reasons_ not interested in that test etc that contributed to it. But I am sure he was very good at math otherwise.
Standardized tests are the least unfair part of the college admissions process. This is established beyond any debate. They aren’t perfect, and we should work to improve them, but to exclude them is to further establish a caste system in the US.
I agree with your sentiments on testing (1 of many tools for some colleges) and the dangers of perpetuating class divides based on inherited privilege. However, I think you misused the historical examples coming from China that many of my friends of Chinese heritage would find offensive.
History would suggest that the examination system was successful in identifying and rewarding talent and creating a means for social mobility for China. Over 2,000 years of history with several “golden ages” does not indicate a failed system. To perpetuate or give credence to the trope that those systems limit creativity ignores the many inventions coming from China and the rich history of art, literature, music, philosophy, effective governance and engineering feats. The Chairman of the “hundred flowers bloom” quickly cracked down when the “flowers” questioned socialist orthodoxy, and it was this same Chairman who brought us the disastrous Cultural Revolution. Mao would not be the first person I would associate with open thought and discourse.
My apologies for any offense given by me trying to type some pre-dawn thoughts this morning. I don’t think that the imperial system was a failure; in many respects, it was a tremendous success, and (as I said) has had lasting influence in the civil service exams across many “western” countries. My (inaptly made) point was that many people who are now all about testing in the U.S. would, I suspect, not sign up for such a system (given the contemporaneous hate for the civil service); my quoting Mao was deliberately (but clearly not effectively) ironic (as in, let’s actually let a hundred flowers bloom). As for the gaokao, I’m going off what I hear and read from Chinese colleagues who talk with us about the benefits and tradeoffs of our holistic process or students who transfer to MIT from Chinese universities — but of course (and this is part of the point), the same critiques are often made within the U.S. of “teaching to the test” stifling creativity.
Basically, my apologies for trying to make a good post and tripping over my own feet while doing so.
I appreciate the credit of good faith — hard to do on the Internet. I probably shouldn’t be trying to post on a few days of <5 hours sleep while preparing for CPW (started yesterday), so I may step away from the keyboard for a bit until my brain is working better.
Here’s the thing (in my opinion), whether or not we include the SAT as a component of elite college admissions, isn’t going to significantly change the de facto caste system we have in the US. Kids from wealthy families will continue to be highly over represented at elite schools whether those schools are test required, test-blind or TO. They have too many baked in advantages for any stance on testing to change that fact. Re-introducing test required policies at certain schools may have advantages for the schools - and I support their desire to do that (schools should adopt any policy that works for them), but I don’t think it is somehow going to make the process more fair or “meritocratic” since (in my opinion) that has never been the case. Any process which has “hooked” students enjoying significant advantages compared to other students (as has been the case at many schools - both before and during TO) can’t really claim to be “meritocratic” anyway.
Hundreds of thousands of data points from teh University of California collected over decades, disagrees with you. UC found, much to thier chagrin, that standardized testing does add more statistical power, but that extra power is not worth the cost of decreased ‘accessibility’.
Standardized tests don’t make admissions perfectly fair, but they make admissions a little bit more fair. Shouldn’t we try to make things more fair? Over time, it might make a difference. Going without standardized tests is surrendering to the caste system.
Paywall. Does it counter Dale and Kreuger? While Chetty tries to highlight benefits of an Ivy+ education, I thought his results showed and economic access advantage only at the extreme far right of the curve? And his results on average income pretty much matched D&K?
I’ve been chewing on this particular point for a while (as we all have I’m sure) and while I’m not 100% a D&K acolyte, I do believe it matches better with my anecdotal experience. I believe elite schools matter but the % of people where it determines whether they are upper middle class or upper lower class is actually small. I’ll try to read the article some other way.
Sorry about the paywall. You can access it for free up to 5 times if you’re not a subscriber.
It’s an ROI analysis. All Ivys (less so Brown) have superior results. Public schools do better than other “prestigious “ schools however. I need to read again but it’s surprising. Contra Dale and Krueger I think
Certainly good points. I do believe most solutions and answers to tough problems lie in the grey areas and it seems to apply here. My HS history teacher loved the Oracle of Delphi: “Know thyself” and “Everything in moderation”. Hopelessly vague and broad, but it still remains useful to remind oneself of its wisdom.