The SAT matters

[Toni]

The basic requirements for math, reading, and writing have not changed since the 50s.

If you score poorly on SATs I do not see how you can handle an engineering or science curriculum. Business math includes calculus.

The result is remedial math courses before taking regular courses.

Part of the problem may be the expectation of having all kids graduate high school with equal capacity to do college level work.

Some people have other aspirations than engineering, science or business. As hard as that is for some people to comprhend.

I would argue that the basic expectations for incoming freshman HAVE changed a great deal from the 50's, from the 70's, from the 90's. So have the required courses for any major--with more and more majors allowing little deviation from a set list of courses centered on a single department.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Schools are trying to increase diversity (which is called "reverse racism" by some), and SAT scores point out "better qualified" students are being passed over for "lesser qualified". Getting rid of the SAT doesn't fix this. It actually makes it a bit harder for schools to have admissions.

To me, the trouble with the SAT is it is a bare metric on language and math. It doesn't really provide a great cross section. Sure, smarter students do better, but the test is too concentrated, especially on stuff like analogies. Word A you'll never use in life is to Word B you'll never use in life is as Word C you've read once in a Hawthorne novel is to ... But it does provide a metric to compare.

But ultimately, lesser advantaged students are on average going to do worse than well advantaged on testing. And testing can't take that into account, only prove it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dropping any admissions requirement is necessarily a decision to weigh other factors more heavily. If other student characteristics, such as essays, recommendations, and coursework, are more strongly correlated with family income than test scores are, then dropping test scores actually tilts the playing field even more in favor of richer students. This was the situation that MIT found itself in after it suspended its SAT requirement in 2020. And other schools that dropped standardized tests during the pandemic will soon find themselves in the same straits.

In short, while SATs discriminate against students with a lower socioeconomic background, alternative methods of selection discriminate against them even more. Hence MIT's decision to reintroduce SATs.

Faith-based reasoning--you're assuming a differential outcome is proof of discrimination

What MIT has found is that softer measurements of ability are easier to game. Nothing has shown that the SAT differences do not reflect actual ability.

There is a discernible trend showing that students with a higher socioeconomic background get better SAT results. On what grounds do you conclude that the SAT differences reflect a higher actual ability of students with a higher socioeconomic background?

Gaming the system is not the issue. Quoting MIT’s dean of admissions, Stu Schmill, what MIT has found is that "Not having SATs/ACT scores to consider tends to raise socioeconomic barriers to demonstrating readiness for our education." Kathryn Paige Harden elaborates on that for the benefit of those who are a little slow on the uptake:

Dropping any admissions requirement is necessarily a decision to weigh other factors more heavily. If other student characteristics, such as essays, recommendations, and coursework, are more strongly correlated with family income than test scores are, then dropping test scores actually tilts the playing field even more in favor of richer students. This was the situation that MIT found itself in after it suspended its SAT requirement in 2020.

Just because he didn't come out and say they are easier to game doesn't make it so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To me, the trouble with the SAT is it is a bare metric on language and math. It doesn't really provide a great cross section. Sure, smarter students do better, but the test is too concentrated, especially on stuff like analogies. Word A you'll never use in life is to Word B you'll never use in life is as Word C you've read once in a Hawthorne novel is to ... But it does provide a metric to compare.

I don't like the rare word focus but I do understand it--recognizing the rare words has a strong relationship with how widely read you are.

 

[steve_bank]

The basic requirements for math, reading, and writing have not changed since the 50s.

If you score poorly on SATs I do not see how you can handle an engineering or science curriculum. Business math includes calculus.

The result is remedial math courses before taking regular courses.

Part of the problem may be the expectation of having all kids graduate high school with equal capacity to do college level work.

Some people have other aspirations than engineering, science or business. As hard as that is for some people to comprhend.

I would argue that the basic expectations for incoming freshman HAVE changed a great deal from the 50's, from the 70's, from the 90's. So have the required courses for any major--with more and more majors allowing little deviation from a set list of courses centered on a single department.

True, but math also represents logical thinking.

It has been said tests like SATs do not measure emotional IQ, for example political skill potential.

In the last part of my engineering career myself and others in my generation observed that something was mussing in new college grads. The ability to independently approach a problem whout predetermined solutions or CAD assistance. Not all of course, but a trend.

I listened to an interview with a business owner who said the same thing. Kids coming out high school into entry level positions need more structureand supervisin than previous generations.

Math even for those who never use it has been training in logical problem solving.

I have watchedyounger people in the media who seem unable to put together coherent sentences without trouble, I assume they are college grads.

Traditionaly there have been competitve schools and non comoetitive schools.

Anyone who can pay tution can get in. In the late 70s in Poland the girlfriend of a roommate came from money and was going to a college known as a place for rich kids to go who cab;t get into competitive schools. Places where yiu have to work hard to flunk out.

Competitive schools hae vhad a bar to reach on admissions, or they used to have. Hard to get into and hard to graduate.

Starting in the 80s there was reporting on PHD inflation. A lot of PHDs in culture and sociology. Not very competitive.

Tak away metrics and make sure people graduate and education gets watered down.

 

[Toni]

Yeah yeah yeah. Kids today! Nuthin but a bunch of coddled incompetent babies.

Tell me about the kids you’ve raised. Tell me about the last time you were in a classroom.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The basic requirements for math, reading, and writing have not changed since the 50s.

If you score poorly on SATs I do not see how you can handle an engineering or science curriculum. Business math includes calculus.

The result is remedial math courses before taking regular courses.

Part of the problem may be the expectation of having all kids graduate high school with equal capacity to do college level work.

Some people have other aspirations than engineering, science or business. As hard as that is for some people to comprhend.

I would argue that the basic expectations for incoming freshman HAVE changed a great deal from the 50's, from the 70's, from the 90's. So have the required courses for any major--with more and more majors allowing little deviation from a set list of courses centered on a single department.

True, but math also represents logical thinking.

It has been said tests like SATs do not measure emotional IQ, for example political skill potential.

In the last part of my engineering career myself and others in my generation observed that something was mussing in new college grads. The ability to independently approach a problem whout predetermined solutions or CAD assistance. Not all of course, but a trend.

I listened to an interview with a business owner who said the same thing. Kids coming out high school into entry level positions need more structureand supervisin than previous generations.

Math even for those who never use it has been training in logical problem solving.

I have watchedyounger people in the media who seem unable to put together coherent sentences without trouble, I assume they are college grads.

Traditionaly there have been competitve schools and non comoetitive schools.

Anyone who can pay tution can get in. In the late 70s in Poland the girlfriend of a roommate came from money and was going to a college known as a place for rich kids to go who cab;t get into competitive schools. Places where yiu have to work hard to flunk out.

Competitive schools hae vhad a bar to reach on admissions, or they used to have. Hard to get into and hard to graduate.

Starting in the 80s there was reporting on PHD inflation. A lot of PHDs in culture and sociology. Not very competitive.

Tak away metrics and make sure people graduate and education gets watered down.

Not my experience. New kids seem smart in engineering. The difference I'm noticing is that the newer engineers are super adapted to software. When I started 23 try ago, there were CAD drafters. Nowadays engineers are fulfilling more tasks. They are engineers, drafters, analyzers, etc...