Split SAT scores as a measure of your potential and college worthiness

[Loren Pechtel]

BUT I haven't missed any point as I am aware of the statistics. I am just open-minded that there could be other statistics that counter those statistics within the criteria that are not shown. For example, it is known that Asians participate less in extra-curricular activities on average than do White people. It's also known that there are more White legacy admissions. And another factor is sports. Personally, I don't like sports or the focus on them. I think it's stupid. However, colleges pay a lot of attention to sports as an extra-curricular activity and Asians according to statistics participate far less in sports. Perhaps it would be a better world if there was less focus there on prioritizing sports by colleges but for whatever reason when they focus on sports they also get more money and some of that benefits more people, allegedly. Same with focusing on legacies or at least that is what you told me years ago...

Sure there could be other factors. That's what the universities keep claiming--and I find very unbelieveable. One case, sure. Enough to get the pattern we see? No way!

There is an expert there who said he looked at this case and said that Zhong came across as too "uni-dimensional." That does sound to me like he took a lot for granted that he'd be accepted based on scores and a strict focus on computer science stuff only.

Here also is another student from Zhong's high school who posted about it on LinkedIn:

Stanley's credentials didn't guarantee him a spot in these elite institutions. The highly competitive nature of college admissions, especially in STEM fields, make it harder for certain students to secure admission.

According to one expert interviewed for the story, the admissions process can be particularly tough for Asian students seeking admission into computer science programs.

"Certain students". Asians. That's pretty clearly accepting that discrimination in admissions is the norm. Foot, meet bullet.

 

[Toni]

Random trivia? It's been a long time since I took the SAT but I do not recall it being random trivia

But it's a good measure of your current worth and intelligence, right? What you knew at 16 or 17 when you took the test is the most objective measure of how good you are at your current profession?

The point is that the SAT is testing skills they will need. They have a lot more skills to acquire but it's not at all irrelevant.

The SAT does not test skills. It tests knowledge.

 

[Toni]

To whose benefit are these epiphanies of meeting or failing to meet the “needed” levels of those skills? The test taker? That seemed to be the emphasis when I dropped out. The prospective employers? In retrospect, that seems more probable.

The sole beneficiaries are the people in HR and admissions departments, who are absolutely swamped by applicants.

If you have a thousand applications for a single position (or for two dozen positions), then you have a huge amount of work to do, to try to determine which is the applicant (or applicants) most likely to succeed. It's essentially an impossible task; We all know of people who get a job (or a place on a college course) by lying on their resume, or by being highly skilled at writing a response to selection criteria, but who are utterly hopeless once in place, and who were almost certainly less suitable than one (or even many) of the unsuccessful applicants.

It's an impossible task; You cannot determine which of a thousand people are likely to be the best. So you need a shortcut.

You could just chuck ninety nine out of every hundred resumes in the bin, based on a purely random selection, and then interview the ten survivors. But your boss would be all "what was the reasoning behind this choice?", and you'd have no good answer for that.

But you can achieve much the same result by setting an entirely arbitrary minimum SAT score for applicants to be considered, and only interview the ten applicants who make that cut - and your boss will be satisfied that your selection process has some solid basis. Even though it really doesn't. And even though the chances are very high that you didn't even interview the best of the applicants.

If you discriminated against perfectly good applicants on the basis of skin colour, or gender, or whether they lived in a particular suburb, or any of dozens of other factors that are highly unlikely to be relevant, then you'd risk being sued, or at the very least, being accused of bias.

But discrimination between two applicants on the basis that one scored 1542, while the other scored 1543, on a standardised test they took twenty years ago, is not going to get you into trouble; And it renders your job vastly easier. Nobody else benefits.

AFAIK, no HR has access to SAT scores. In fact, your SAT scores and GPA become completely irrelevant the moment you are offered and accept admission to any post secondary school. The next time that test scores and GPAs count is if you are applying to a graduate or professional school and get only care about your university level accomplishments (GPA) and your GREs or MCAT or LSAT. After that, additional test scores and GPA relevant to your program/area of study matter more and nobody gives a fuck if you lettered in basketball, football and track or if you won the science fair or math bowl.

For a long time in my youth, I bitterly resented athletes who received full scholarships that simply were not available to girls—which was especially made explicit when freshman year I met a semi-literate fellow student on a full golf scholarship whose academic background placed him in remedial classes his first year. Layer, I grew up and recognized that for many students, they only chance—and the only reason they would ever have to come into contact with education beyond high school was through sports. And that they benefited from university coursework and being exposed to a larger world within the confines of that safety net known as the college experience just as kids who attended college on academic scholarships band had to scramble to fill those shortfalls. Of course this was before college sticker price cost more than a starter home.

What people fail to recognize is that admissions departments generally know very well what they are doing and recognize that they need some diversity in their student body because students will graduate and encounter people who did not grow up being shuttled from private tennis lessons to crew to music theater to soup kitchen volunteering to summers doing ‘volunteer’ tourism or work in their father’s cousin or college roommates’ re-election campaign.

And believe it or not, those people they encounter will actually be just as smart—or smarter, as hard working, more creative and kin, decent human beings who deserve as much of a chance in this world as the fourth generation Harvard freshman does.

 

[Gospel]

The SAT, conceived by Carl Campbell Brigham—a piece of shit psychologist with eugenicist beliefs— asserting the intellectual superiority of white individuals over people of color. He developed the SAT specifically to prove his beliefs. Over the years, it transitioned from a memory-based test to one that evaluates critical thinking and problem-solving. The College Board, recognizing some inherent biases, revamped the SAT to eliminate content that unfairly disadvantages specific groups, including women and students of color. On top of all that craptastic history, the SAT fails to consider external factors that might impact a student's performance, such as economic hardships, traumatic events like confrontations with aggressive police officers &/or civilians, or other distressing incidents like violent communities & missing family structure. Schools would struggle (if they even try) to account for these variables that skew results. However, as living conditions and opportunities have improved for marginalized demographics, we've observed some progress. The enhancements are apparent in SAT score charts previously presented on this forum, albeit sometimes shared with questionable intent or, perhaps, echoing the test's original problematic motives..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What people fail to recognize is that admissions departments generally know very well what they are doing and recognize that they need some diversity in their student body because students will graduate and encounter people who did not grow up being shuttled from private tennis lessons to crew to music theater to soup kitchen volunteering to summers doing ‘volunteer’ tourism or work in their father’s cousin or college roommates’ re-election campaign.

And believe it or not, those people they encounter will actually be just as smart—or smarter, as hard working, more creative and kin, decent human beings who deserve as much of a chance in this world as the fourth generation Harvard freshman does.

Except that's not what they're doing.

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

 

[Toni]

What people fail to recognize is that admissions departments generally know very well what they are doing and recognize that they need some diversity in their student body because students will graduate and encounter people who did not grow up being shuttled from private tennis lessons to crew to music theater to soup kitchen volunteering to summers doing ‘volunteer’ tourism or work in their father’s cousin or college roommates’ re-election campaign.

And believe it or not, those people they encounter will actually be just as smart—or smarter, as hard working, more creative and kin, decent human beings who deserve as much of a chance in this world as the fourth generation Harvard freshman does.

Except that's not what they're doing.

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

Loren I honestly cannot understand why it is that you insist that a few points one way or another on the SAT is actually indicative of…anything.

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What people fail to recognize is that admissions departments generally know very well what they are doing and recognize that they need some diversity in their student body because students will graduate and encounter people who did not grow up being shuttled from private tennis lessons to crew to music theater to soup kitchen volunteering to summers doing ‘volunteer’ tourism or work in their father’s cousin or college roommates’ re-election campaign.

And believe it or not, those people they encounter will actually be just as smart—or smarter, as hard working, more creative and kin, decent human beings who deserve as much of a chance in this world as the fourth generation Harvard freshman does.

Except that's not what they're doing.

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

Loren I honestly cannot understand why it is that you insist that a few points one way or another on the SAT is actually indicative of…anything.

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

You're the one supporting racism, not me. I favor admissions based on qualifications, the people making the decisions shouldn't even know somebody's race.

 

[Toni]

What people fail to recognize is that admissions departments generally know very well what they are doing and recognize that they need some diversity in their student body because students will graduate and encounter people who did not grow up being shuttled from private tennis lessons to crew to music theater to soup kitchen volunteering to summers doing ‘volunteer’ tourism or work in their father’s cousin or college roommates’ re-election campaign.

And believe it or not, those people they encounter will actually be just as smart—or smarter, as hard working, more creative and kin, decent human beings who deserve as much of a chance in this world as the fourth generation Harvard freshman does.

Except that's not what they're doing.

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

Loren I honestly cannot understand why it is that you insist that a few points one way or another on the SAT is actually indicative of…anything.

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

You're the one supporting racism, not me. I favor admissions based on qualifications, the people making the decisions shouldn't even know somebody's race.

You’re the one who brought up black and Hispanic students without demonstrating that there is any difference between 5 or 25 points on the SAT in ability to predict academic success.

 

[RVonse]

SATs are pure bullshit imo. Some people aren't good at taking standardized tests, while others are very good at it. And, as I think Toni has mentioned, parents with money often spend a lot to have their children tutored in how to improve their scores as well as taking the tests several times. One of the reasons I feel this way is because my son, who graduated with honors with a degree in computer science, and then went on to have a very successful, enjoyable career as a programmer/developer for the past 25 or so years, had incredibly low SAT scores. That kept him out of his first choice of colleges, despite already having a 2 year degree in computer science technology with excellent grades, along with some work experience in that field, but it didn't hold him back from accomplishing his career goals. He taught himself how to program using machine language as a teenager, despite not getting great grades in high school, so he obviously had talent in that area. He sure didn't get it from me, but to this day, he loves what he does. My scores weren't that great, but they were better than all of my straight A friends in high school and I never prepared for my SATs and I only took them once, unlike many of my smarter friends. I didn't care because I wan't trying to get into some highly competitive school.

My nursing board scores were very high, which was another type of standardized test. Nursing boards are now pass/fail, which is probably a good thing. My school trained us in how to take the nursing boards, by making all of our tests in the same format as the boards, and that probably helped most of us score high on the boards. Standardized test results, imo, should never be used as a way to judge one's potential success at college or in life. I'm happy to see so many schools do away with them. I'd rather have an applicant write an essay. Good writing skills are important in most professions. I'm not interested in arguing about it. I simply disagree with anyone who seems to think these tests are a measure of one's intelligence or ability to do well in college. And, I think it's even crazier to use them to judge someone who has been successful in their political career.

How did we get so off topic?

How would you do it if you had your way? How would you pick candidates for something highly competitive like medical school?

You either have to differentiate people in some manner or you have to let everyone get in. And letting everyone in is not an option because the AMA union is there to keep doctor wages high.

 

[laughing dog]

You either have to differentiate people in some manner or you have to let everyone get in. And letting everyone in is not an option because the AMA union is there to keep doctor wages high.

Letting everyone in is not an option because many people are not really physician material and educating physicians is expensive. The good and effective practice of medicine requires more than academic skill. It requires good judgment, excellent listening and observational skills, empathy and excellent communication skills - none of which the SAT or GPA measure.

Which is why it makes sense that the institutions that have the most information about what it takes to become a good physician get to design and implement the selection method.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You either have to differentiate people in some manner or you have to let everyone get in. And letting everyone in is not an option because the AMA union is there to keep doctor wages high.

Letting everyone in is not an option because many people are not really physician material and educating physicians is expensive. The good and effective practice of medicine requires more than academic skill. It requires good judgment, excellent listening and observational skills, empathy and excellent communication skills - none of which the SAT or GPA measure.

Which is why it makes sense that the institutions that have the most information about what it takes to become a good physician get to design and implement the selection method.

If you think the system could be improved upon show how. Race must not appear in the system, nor any proxy thereof.

 

[laughing dog]

You either have to differentiate people in some manner or you have to let everyone get in. And letting everyone in is not an option because the AMA union is there to keep doctor wages high.

Letting everyone in is not an option because many people are not really physician material and educating physicians is expensive. The good and effective practice of medicine requires more than academic skill. It requires good judgment, excellent listening and observational skills, empathy and excellent communication skills - none of which the SAT or GPA measure.

Which is why it makes sense that the institutions that have the most information about what it takes to become a good physician get to design and implement the selection method.

If you think the system could be improved upon show how. Race must not appear in the system, nor any proxy thereof.

My response was directed at the notion of the SAT and/or GPA as measure of potential medical school worthiness. Furthermore, if you paid attention to the actual words in my response, I explicitly said that it makes sense for the institutions that have the most information about what it takes to become a good physician to design the selection protocols. Neither you nor I have that knowledge so I have no idea why you would ask.

 

[southernhybrid]

People who apply to medical schools have to take the MCAT so, I doubt their scores on the SATs matter much by the time they apply to medical school, if at all. The MCAT, supposedly assesses critical thinking skills as well as lots of scientific knowledge. I'm sure there are many other things that are considered when deciding who is qualified for medical school, like GPA in undergraduate college, and hopefully, writing an essay regarding why one thinks they would be a good doctor. If it's not done already, I would hope that those who appear to be the most qualified are also required to have a in person interview with a member of the board who makes the decisions regarding who to admit. If it were up to me, I'd also look for some volunteer work, as well as several good recommendations from their former college professors, or physicians who know them personally.

But, based on my decades of dealing with physicians, who are often don't seem very smart, and who often lack good critical thinking skills, something tells me that the admission procedures aren't very effective. I do wonder how many medical students get into these schools due to legacy admissions. My primary doctor's father is also a doctor, and she's not all that smart imo, so now I request to see the NP instead of her. I've been misdiagnosed by several doctors in the past, so I prefer seeing my NP, who I trust more and feel more comfortable discussing my problems with. If I can find a good NP, I always prefer them over an MD for primary care. When it comes to specialists, MDs are usually better than PAs, imo. But, there are plenty of specialists who aren't very good either, so we all must be careful when we decide which doctor will provide our care. I usually ask other patients how their experiences were with a doctor, as well as asking my NP.

The link below describes the MCAT, for those who aren't familiar with it. But, I agree with Laughing Dog, in that we aren't really qualified to say exactly what criteria should be used to evaluate one's potential to make a competent physician. All I know is that there are too many physicians who seem more concerned with money or prestige, than they do about providing compassion, competent care to those who depend on them. But, I digress.

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

 

[Tharmas]

My brother is a doctor, and a good one. He received a degree from a very prestigious university. I can’t remember his field, perhaps something like “general studies”. When he wanted to apply to medical school he found he didn’t have enough science credits in his background, so he worked for a couple of years as a lab assistant at another, far less prestigious university, where he did well in his endeavors and received good recommendations from his bosses. He also received a recommendation from my then father-in-law, who was a well-credentialed MD who was on the faculty of a medical school. So my brother got admitted. I don’t know if he even took MCAT. I’ll have to ask him. The med school was looking at a lot more than simply GPA and test scores. But this was 50 years ago.

Incidentally, I also hold a degree from a prestigious university, and I’ve found it has opened doors for me my entire professional career. That's perhaps not fair, but it's reality.

 

[Bomb#20]

Except that's not what they're doing.

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

Loren I honestly cannot understand why it is that you insist that a few points one way or another on the SAT is actually indicative of…anything.

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

Basic Beliefs: Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Practice what you preach.

 

[Bomb#20]

I would ask, though, that anyone saying it's a sure thing--a definite case of bias or whatever--to demonstrate it further by listing out all the criteria that a college might use ...

That's an impossible challenge, well-engineered to make claims of nondiscrimination unfalsifiable. ... Failing to prove an individual case misses the point, and whether SAT scores measure college worthiness misses the point, and demonstrated ability to make a long list of other criteria misses the point. There is a measured statistical pattern, and it needs to be accounted for, and none of those point-missing rejoinders account for it.

BUT I haven't missed any point as I am aware of the statistics.

Didn't say you missed the point; I said your rejoinders missed it. If you got the point but elected not to address it, that's on you.

I am just open-minded that there could be other statistics that counter those statistics within the criteria that are not shown. For example, it is known that Asians participate less in extra-curricular activities on average than do White people. It's also known that there are more White legacy admissions. And another factor is sports. Personally, I don't like sports or the focus on them. I think it's stupid. However, colleges pay a lot of attention to sports as an extra-curricular activity and Asians according to statistics participate far less in sports.

Those are non-point-missing responses, thank you.

What merit, what measure of college worthiness, what positive personal characteristic or skill or background, do Asians have less of than the rest of us?​

To be open, I do not reject an idea of bias out of hand. That said, even if so, I still think there is an answer as can be seen from previous post. Asian culture has a big focus on academics and sometimes this can be a detriment to other areas such as extra-curricular activities, esp sports, as well as the kind of well-roundedness colleges sometimes seek. Anecdotally, I've known parents who would ground their kids if not getting straight A's and this would impact social stuff to include school activities. That's meant to show the focus at work. Sometimes the colleges are also asking teachers in recommendations about the social or community side to the student. It may be hard for a teacher to speak to this question for a high achiever who has singular focus and just expects to be rewarded. None of that means all Asians or even most Asians...but there is some kind of statistical difference.

These factors could be controlled for in the statistics. It's easy enough to tell who's a legacy, and the applications and admissions officers' notes are available. If Harvard et al. can make the racial discrepancy shown in the OP go away by splitting the statistics out into cohorts with similar extracurriculars and legacy status, they're welcome to. Since they don't seem to have done so, that throws their ability to into doubt. And the fact that came out in the lawsuit that they've been giving Asians lower subjective "personal" ratings for stuff like likeability indicates that relying on objective measures of extracurriculars wouldn't have given them the mix they wanted. Moreover, Asian culture doesn't have a big focus on academics as an end in itself. Asian culture has a big focus on academics because the Chinese bureaucracy has been recruiting the ruling class from the top scorers on exams for about three thousand years so the common people have long known that's the pathway to a better life for their kids. If the appearance of discrimination against Asians were really due to Harvard et al. discriminating against students who aren't involved in sports and extracurriculars, this fact would probably become known to Asians, and then the tiger moms would assign sports and clubs to their kids and ground them if they let getting straight A's impact the social stuff.

 

[Toni]

Except that's not what they're doing.

The slots aren't going to the poor. They're going to the well to do blacks and Hispanics. And if you take the SAT out of the picture the effect is even more pronounced because the other systems are easier to game.

Loren I honestly cannot understand why it is that you insist that a few points one way or another on the SAT is actually indicative of…anything.

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

Basic Beliefs: Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Practice what you preach.

I am.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

That's not goodwill towards Loren. That's hate speech towards Loren.

 

[Elixir]

Is it hate speech if it’s true? I believe that if Toni says something “seems” a certain way, she is being honest about how it seems to her.

 

[Toni]

Your real problem seems to be that more blacks and Hispanics are going to good colleges.

That's not goodwill towards Loren. That's hate speech towards Loren.

That was an observation or question for Loren. I often disagree with Loren and sometimes agree with him but agree/disagree has nothing to do with any emotion at all, much less hate. I have a lot of respect for Loren.