Current Events > MIT to reinstate the SAT/ACT

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/

They say not having the SAT/ACT gives an advantage to the wealthy and having them increases diversity

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/2/0/AABJX0AADFE0.jpg

if you get accepted to MIT before taking the SAT/ACT then why would you take it there

Standardized tests are kinda bullshit imo

s0nicfan posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/2/0/AABJX0AADFE0.jpg

We had it right before.

Blind auditions are a great answer and we need to export that mentality to all hiring practices.

It's like the definition of anti-racism, the perfect example of fairness. Take all the bullshit out of it and just judge a person based on themselves as an individual and nothing else.

hockeybub89 posted...

Standardized tests are kinda bullshit imo

Strongly disagree. Academics (as with many things) should be merit based, and standardized tests are designed to measure academic merit.

If you think they fail to do that adequately, I'm open to them being improved to do a better at that task, but the task itself is very important.

joe40001 posted...

We had it right before.

Blind auditions are a great answer and we need to export that mentality to all hiring practices.

It's like the definition of anti-racism, the perfect example of fairness. Take all the bullshit out of it and just judge a person based on themselves as an individual and nothing else.

Blinded procedures don't help when the effects of discrimination are already baked in at the time of evaluation.

joe40001 posted...

Strongly disagree. Academics (as with many things) should be merit based, and standardized tests are designed to measure academic merit.

If you think they fail to do that adequately, I'm open to them being improved to do a better at that task, but the task itself is very important.

youre wrong.

all these tests are good for is for measuring how good you are at taking that specific kind of test. Rich kids get test tutors and special prep courses and then ace these tests.

it is hard for southside Jim to compete with Tucker Leavensworth when Jim goes to flip Big Macs after school and Tucker gets a hearty meal, a nap and then he gets 90 minutes of SAT prep with a tutor that specializes on that, every day

joe40001 posted...

Strongly disagree. Academics (as with many things) should be merit based, and standardized tests are designed to measure academic merit.

In practice what they measure is parental wealth and income
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

The-Batman posted...

youre wrong.

all these tests are good for is for measuring how good you are at taking that specific kind of test. Rich kids get test tutors and special prep courses and then ace these tests.

it is hard for southside Jim to compete with Tucker Leavensworth when Jim goes to flip Big Macs after school and Tucker gets a hearty meal, a nap and then he gets 90 minutes of SAT prep with a tutor that specializes on that, every day

Then how is it that poor Asian kids are still kicking ass in these tests?

wannabepranksta posted...

Then how is it that poor Asian kids are still kicking ass in these tests?

helicopter parents

COVxy posted...

Blinded procedures don't help when the effects of discrimination are already baked in at the time of evaluation.

And those should be addressed at the opportunity level. Not the merit measurement level. For example, an orchestra for say playing violin doesn't have enough representation from poor kids, that means you should push policies that get poor kids more violins and violin practices, that doesn't mean you should lower the standards for violining for poor kids.

Nobody wants their success to be a consequence of lowered standards, they want the opportunity to achieve high standards.

The-Batman posted...

youre wrong.

all these tests are good for is for measuring how good you are at taking that specific kind of test. Rich kids get test tutors and special prep courses and then ace these tests.

it is hard for southside Jim to compete with Tucker Leavensworth when Jim goes to flip Big Macs after school and Tucker gets a hearty meal, a nap and then he gets 90 minutes of SAT prep with a tutor that specializes on that, every day

A tutor helps you learn these things, that doesn't mean the things don't have value.

Yes, a math tutor will help you be good at taking a math test, and a poor person won't have the same time and practice at doing such a test, but that unfairness does not reflect poorly on the test or on math.

A person shouldn't say "math doesn't matter" to fix the problem, they make sure the poor person has access to more resources and opportunity to get better at math.

A really good test will measure the relevant ability and not much else, If you think tests are not doing that well enough, then we can further improve the tests. But abolishing them is obviously the wrong response.

They used to ship some kids that lived in the rooty tooty point n shooty asscrack of south Atlanta 40+ miles each way to a charter high school I attended in 9th and 10th grade. They'd wake up at like 5am and get back home at like 7-8pm (because Atlanta traffic)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_County_Charter_High_School_of_Mathematics_and_Science

School shut down within 3 years because the model wasn't sustainable. And some of the kids who attended were definitely poor, seeing as how they lived in the super shithole part of south Atlanta. I lived in an affluent enough area where that school shutting down wasn't a hindrance to my education, because the high school I attended after that was also a charter high school with a lot of SAT/ACT prep and also community college courses hosted at the school itself.

So to answer the question about these unnamed rando poor Asian kids kicking ass in tests, I highly doubt they live in a bubble with no support, and then miraculously ace standardized tests out of the blue.

Also edit because that post kinda makes me sound like I grew up with money which wasn't the case, I just know I was better off than they were. The area we lived in was kinda affluent, but my parents moved there just for the schools and my sister and I were fortunate that they were able to do so. But there were still weeks where a family of four ate just rice and eggs multiple days a week, the family dog sometimes had to eat bread for dinner, I ate enough cheap hot pockets for lunch in 9th and 10th grade to the point where just smelling them still makes me slightly nauseous to this day, and my sister still absolutely hates taco salads because that used to be our fancy dinner for about 3 years. But I was lucky enough to have opportunities coming from a low income family. My family has money now years after the fact...which is probably why my sister and dad can't stop blowing money on bullshit

Antifar posted...

In practice what they measure is parental wealth and income
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

A super rich person is going to have access to a lot more time, opportunity, and training at say swimming. That doesn't mean the Olympic 100 meter backstroke is a measure of wealth.

Wealth is a proxy for academic opportunity and increased academic opportunity is going to lead to increased academic success, but that doesn't mean these tests of academic success are actually tests of wealth.

Things like getting into college because your parents donated a wing, or just social nepotism are bullshit unrelated to academic merit. But standardized tests are about academic merit.

s0nicfan posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/2/0/AABJX0AADFE0.jpg

2 different people writing for 2 different publications at 2 different times in 2 different contexts

wannabepranksta posted...

Then how is it that poor Asian kids are still kicking ass in these tests?

three active posts. Racial correlation to race. iZ pRaNk bRo name.

Alfred, tag this account as possible racist in the database.

joe40001 posted...

And those should be addressed at the opportunity level. Not the merit measurement level. For example, an orchestra for say playing violin doesn't have enough representation from poor kids, that means you should push policies that get poor kids more violins and violin practices, that doesn't mean you should lower the standards for violining for poor kids.

Nobody wants their success to be a consequence of lowered standards, they want the opportunity to achieve high standards.

This seems a rather presumptuous statement - I'm sure there are lots of people (generations even) that have been waiting for opportunity and would not want to achieve success even if it was from lowered standards (getting to play in the damn orchestra)

A tutor helps you learn these things, that doesn't mean the things don't have value.

Yes, a math tutor will help you be good at taking a math test, and a poor person won't have the same time and practice at doing such a test, but that unfairness does not reflect poorly on the test or on math.

A person shouldn't say "math doesn't matter" to fix the problem, they make sure the poor person has access to more resources and opportunity to get better at math.

A really good test will measure the relevant ability and not much else, If you think tests are not doing that well enough, then we can further improve the tests. But abolishing them is obviously the wrong response.

While your premise has merit, it is asking for wholesale structural change - how do you propose to make that happen? And while waiting for that change to happen, the current generation just.. has to suck it up?

MIT is MIT. You have to be really good to go.