To a point. It takes intelligence to find out what the test taker is asking and telling them what they want to hear. Not everybody can do that. If it's such a bullshyt metric, why is it a successful indicator of 1st year performance?
SUNY to permanently drop the SAT and ACT requirements. Becoming the biggest university system to do so
- Thread starter Anerdyblackguy
- Start date
You just unintentionally admitted that a major purpose of standardized tests is in order to ensure that privileged kids from the good neighborhoods are able to retain yet another advantage over the kids who are forced to go to shytty schools.
What do you consider the appropriate metric for evaluation? Please try and picks ones that are objectively valuable and not just circular/self-reinforcing.
Funny, how they started doing this when Gen Z white and Asian males, the traditional male college student, stopped going to colleges in high numbers during the last decade due to excessive tuition prices and historically high loans
When White dudes of Gen Z don't bother going to college and rather bum out or learn a trade skill, all of a sudden the SAT and ACT doesn't make sense.
Breh, white/asian males aren't failing to go to college due to an overemphasis on standardized test scores. Standardized tests tend to be the place where they remain MOST competitive in college applications, it's their grades, drive, and intangibles that are killing them.
And some of us have been fighting for this shyt for decades. I played a small part in laying the groundwork for some of these moves a good 23 years ago. It's not something they suddenly decided to do just now, there are been growing changes making progress towards this for a long time.
Last edited:
Graduation rate, job placement, salary, etc.You just unintentionally admitted that a major purpose of standardized tests is in order to ensure that privileged kids from the good neighborhoods are able to retain yet another advantage over the kids who are forced to go to shytty schools.
What do you consider the appropriate metric for evaluation? Please try and picks ones that are objectively valuable and not just circular/self-reinforcing.
I don’t know how you can argue against statistics, but by all means I’m open to your thoughts.
And I did study tests and measurements. What did you study?
Which are all highly determined by the same biased advantages that also gave those same kids an advantage on the standardized tests.
Your average rich kid from a highly-educated family will get that job placement and salary even if they don't go to college at all, so the fact that they get it after college is somehow proof they were the ones who most deserved to be there?
One of the craziest educational outcomes I've seen is the fact that C- average high school students from rich families are more likely to graduate college than A students from poor families.
Read your sentence that I had bolded again breh.
I studied physics in undergrad with a lot of psychology coursework on the side. I studied education in grad school with my thesis and course emphasis both on the achievement gap for Black students. So yeah, I've got just a little bit of background studying standardized testing at the academic level.
Once you factor in grades and courses, standardized tests basically correlate with family socioeconomic status, parental educational background, and the quality of school attended. On average they give you no additional information past other academic measures on the worthiness of that student outside of what you already could have known from the other details in their application.
And yes, kids who have better parental education, family socioeconomics, and better schooling do tend to do better in college. So if you argue for that outcome being your primary measure, aren't you just creating a self-perpetuating advantage that maintains the inequalities in the system? Why not instead look for the students who shown the most potential to succeed within the environment available to them, and then do your best to elevate and nurture the potential they've clearly shown, rather than simply dismissing them because of the disadvantages their inferior background gave them? The kids with the advantages will be fine, they're not the ones you need to worry about.
I was a "gifted" student who went to a shytty school that didn't offer virtually any AP courses or other enrichment for gifted students. My high standardized scores probably were a factor behind why I got into nearly all the elite colleges I had applied to.
But so what? Imagine I didn't get to take that test, so all I had were my high grades and my teachers' word. Would I have gotten into those same schools? I'm not sure. But I obviously would have gotten into some good school, and even if it wasn't my first choice I would have done fine there.
Gifted kids from good schools will be just fine. Gifted kids from bad schools, but who still had enough advantages that they're the type who would nail standardized tests, will be just fine. The gifted kids you need to worry about are the ones who come from bad schools and who lack enough advantages to nail standardized tests. And the removal of standardized testing as a criteria helps those kids the most.
And yes, kids who have better parental education, family socioeconomics, and better schooling do tend to do better in college. So if you argue for that outcome being your primary measure, aren't you just creating a self-perpetuating advantage that maintains the inequalities in the system? Why not instead look for the students who shown the most potential to succeed within the environment available to them, and then do your best to elevate and nurture the potential they've clearly shown, rather than simply dismissing them because of the disadvantages their inferior background gave them? The kids with the advantages will be fine, they're not the ones you need to worry about.
I was a "gifted" student who went to a shytty school that didn't offer virtually any AP courses or other enrichment for gifted students. My high standardized scores probably were a factor behind why I got into nearly all the elite colleges I had applied to.
But so what? Imagine I didn't get to take that test, so all I had were my high grades and my teachers' word. Would I have gotten into those same schools? I'm not sure. But I obviously would have gotten into some good school, and even if it wasn't my first choice I would have done fine there.
Gifted kids from good schools will be just fine. Gifted kids from bad schools, but who still had enough advantages that they're the type who would nail standardized tests, will be just fine. The gifted kids you need to worry about are the ones who come from bad schools and who lack enough advantages to nail standardized tests. And the removal of standardized testing as a criteria helps those kids the most.
Oh…lol. I just saw it. Grade schoolWhich are all highly determined by the same biased advantages that also gave those same kids an advantage on the standardized tests.
Your average rich kid from a highly-educated family will get that job placement and salary even if they don't go to college at all, so the fact that they get it after college is somehow proof they were the ones who most deserved to be there?
One of the craziest educational outcomes I've seen is the fact that C- average high school students from rich families are more likely to graduate college than A students from poor families.
Read your sentence that I had bolded again breh.
I studied physics in undergrad with a lot of psychology coursework on the side. I studied education in grad school with my thesis and course emphasis both on the achievement gap for Black students. So yeah, I've got just a little bit of background studying standardized testing at the academic level.
But then it punishes those that do score high on standardized tests like yourself.
That's begging the question - you can only say you're "punishing" high-scoring kids if you assume those kids deserve special advantages. It's like saying that closing tax loopholes punishes the rich, or employing affirmative action punishes the white. It's not a punishment, it's simply the removal of an unjustified systemic bias that has been doing all of us far more harm than good.
I didn't "do" anything to get good SAT scores. Unlike the rich white kids who took the best classes at elite schools or the Tiger Mom-raised Asian kids who have 50 hours of test prep, I had done virtually nothing. No hard classes, no test prep, no tutors. I was just intellectually curious from a young age and really, really fukking good at taking tests. So why do I "deserve" the best school?
If no one sees my test scores, I still racked up a perfect GPA and damn near every academic award my school had to offer. Would that along with my background have been enough to get into some of the best schools in the country? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I only would have gotten into a second-tier school. And do you know what? I would have been just fine. Kids with great grades and high SAT scores will usually be fine wherever. We don't need to cater to them. Colleges largely do it because successfully recruiting those kids raises their ranking and increases their alum donations.
If I had my way, I would overhaul the system even further. The sole role of the admissions department would be to determine whether the applicant is capable of doing well at the university. If a student didn't appear ready for that school, they should be removed from the applicant pool. All others would be put into a lottery to be selected at random. Separate lottery pools or a point system could be used in order to achieve any demographic or specialty goals.
Not for nothing but the fact that a lot of people now have a college degree and they are still working shytty service sector jobs is precisely proof that if letting everyone in waters down college education then everyone having a degree also does the same thing...
A degree is supposed to really indicate that you have some specialized training in a field ...but on the real you have art history and English lit degrees not becuase those persons are especially talented..they just needed to graduate with a degree to qualify to work as an administrative assistant for some company ....
To do shyt you don't need a degree to really do
A degree is supposed to really indicate that you have some specialized training in a field ...but on the real you have art history and English lit degrees not becuase those persons are especially talented..they just needed to graduate with a degree to qualify to work as an administrative assistant for some company ....
To do shyt you don't need a degree to really do
To keep it a stack, that shyt needs to be scrapped countrywide. Colleges basing their admissions around the score of a test that you can spend money to prep for, take as many times as you want, and outright just straight cheat on is absurd.
So how are admissions working? They goin off vibes?
Breh, white/asian males aren't failing to go to college due to an overemphasis on standardized test scores. Standardized tests tend to be the place where they remain MOST competitive in college applications, it's their grades, drive, and intangibles that are killing them.
And some of us have been fighting for this shyt for decades. I played a small part in laying the groundwork for some of these moves a good 23 years ago. It's not something they suddenly decided to do just now, there are been growing changes making progress towards this for a long time.
Its because the traditional numbers are down because Gen Z white males saw what happened with Gen Y and the great recession and how a degree didn't guarantee a good paying job, so many of them post 2014 are straight up not trying anymore. Hell, even in those high end professions, more and more women are overrepresented in jobs that men use to have (like over 70% of all white collar workers).
Now that those young white and Asian males are skipping college, and these colleges depend on them for their financial well-being, now they easing requirements as an incentive for them to re-populate the campuses. But they are not working because they feel like their efforts are going to be in vein like Gen Y did.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
No it's not.
A college degree means you have a strong understanding of a subject or field. Its been perverted to be about job placement because, America.
The issue isn't people getting liberal arts degrees as much as grade school education failing by not teaching people skills they need to survive in the workforce except for listening to authority.
Again, this doesn't make any sense because testing is where those men had the biggest advantage. Grades, coursework, teacher recommendations are where those students were looking bad, not tests. Removing testing would make white/asian men even less competitive in admissions, not moreso.
Grades, what courses you've taken, recommendations, the activities you spend your time on. You know, things actually relevant to what you're doing with your life, as opposed to a 2-hour test on material that 90% of the time has jack shyt to do with what you actually want to study in college.