I can't help but wonder at the motivations for these changes, at UC and other schools. It seems to be a combination of equity (it favors rich kids), effectiveness (it's not that predictive) and risk aversion (can't prove racist admissions if there's no standardized comparison).
And yet... I wonder if we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Standardized tests _seem_ like they could be such a such a powerful force for fairness & efficiency. I wonder that there isn't a way to improve the test - especially since, at this rate, the SAT could be obsolete in a decade or two.
I think the problem with standardized tests is that they're standardized; you can prepare for them. It reduces both the effectiveness and the equity, because preparation for the tests is something that rich kids will have better time and access to.
Test prep has a small impact ONLY WHEN ALL OTHER BACKGROUND FACTORS ARE CONTROLLED. Many studies have found that without these controls on things like parental income, school district, etc., test prep has a large impact due to the vastly improved test prep of students who can afford high quality coaching/spend lots of time preparing.
If they spend lots of time preparing, they deserve it right? Even if you compare a rich kid preparing full time versus a poor kid preparing exhausted for an hour at the end of the day, the rich kid rightly deserves it - logically they'll also have more time for their studies at the college and do better at it.
I'm all for equal opportunity, but not of outcomes.
I read an article, that I can't find now, that convincingly argues that the SAT is one of the most equalizing factors for privilege. Impressive extracurricular, recommendation letters, and even grades are easier to buy than a higher SAT score.
Prep helps, but prep has a limit. A Golf tutor, high tier equipment, admission to private school with a large golf team, etc. are more easily bought.
Wouldn’t this continue into college? Well off families can have their children simply study in college, and provide money for extra materials. Other students will have to get jobs to service their on going tuition.
An example of how merit based systems also favor the rich is the UN internship system. You are an unpaid intern in Genova, one of the most expensive cities in the world. If you pass, you have an easy path through the UN but only the rich can afford that.
I think the real issue is money is useful beyond buying hedonism and comfort.
> I think the problem with standardized tests is that they're standardized; you can prepare for them.
Honest question: what is it about the standardization that fundamentally makes standardized tests easier to prepare for vs. non-standardized tests? It's not like either sort of test re-uses questions year-to-year, or that non-standardized tests have mystery subject matter.
The standardization is that everyone gets the same questions, or a mix from the same pool of questions. That aspect doesn't seem to make preparation any easier or harder, unless you're talking about the standardization making elaborate cheating schemes scale better, but that's not generally considered prep.
You can pay for tutoring that will improve your ability to answer those types of questions rather than increase your intelligence. If the standardized tests were good tests of general knowledge then paying $4,000 for a prep course shouldn’t be able to materially increase your score. You’re basically learning how to solve the SAT/ACT/LSAT puzzle, not suddenly learning a few years of school in 2 weeks.
Standardized tests have to recycle the same 'tricks' from one exam to the next. It's how they standardize and make the tests easier and harder.
Take enough prior exams as you prepare and you begin to recognize the same question structures and answer patterns.
Buying the old exams is not so cheap, on to put prep classes or tutoring
20 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 66.3 ms ] threadAnd yet... I wonder if we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Standardized tests _seem_ like they could be such a such a powerful force for fairness & efficiency. I wonder that there isn't a way to improve the test - especially since, at this rate, the SAT could be obsolete in a decade or two.
I'm all for equal opportunity, but not of outcomes.
Prep helps, but prep has a limit. A Golf tutor, high tier equipment, admission to private school with a large golf team, etc. are more easily bought.
An example of how merit based systems also favor the rich is the UN internship system. You are an unpaid intern in Genova, one of the most expensive cities in the world. If you pass, you have an easy path through the UN but only the rich can afford that.
I think the real issue is money is useful beyond buying hedonism and comfort.
Honest question: what is it about the standardization that fundamentally makes standardized tests easier to prepare for vs. non-standardized tests? It's not like either sort of test re-uses questions year-to-year, or that non-standardized tests have mystery subject matter.
The standardization is that everyone gets the same questions, or a mix from the same pool of questions. That aspect doesn't seem to make preparation any easier or harder, unless you're talking about the standardization making elaborate cheating schemes scale better, but that's not generally considered prep.