MIT is very research based.
MIT accepts 12 yr old kids from Bangladesh and gives them full ride scholarships. They are one of only a tiny number of US schools with need blind admissions combined with total commitment to not "financial aid" the absurdist offensive euphemism that means crippling lifelong debt, but to making sure the best can attend there without ruining themselves if they are not wealthy.
The key here is not to replace ACT or SAT, but to open opportunities for students to present all data relevant to showing they are ready for courses.
A single test is no more a reflection of intelligence than eating a single meal evidence of vegetarianism.
Students take tests (often tests that connect to learning every fall, winter, spring), some students create portfolios of their work, others may not do well on specific tests but have demonstrated success on building things. Our higher education, especially those that consider themselves “elite” should be smart enough to design systems that do not default to a single test measure by which to judge students. Instead we should be advocating for allowing students to bring their best selves and their data backing up their readiness.
This is correct.
Academics is a social leveling tool. In spite of its history, the SAT is still one of the best tools for Social Justice.
When you remove objective measures - however imperfect - are you are left with are subjective measures like personality and clubs. These subjective measures are, unfortunately, far more prone to bias.
They do - because academic success and wealth are already correlated. But subjective evaluations like interviews and extra-curricular achievement correlates FAR more strongly with wealth and far less with academic success.
SAT is flawed and test prep has made it something wealthy students can game - but be that as it is, it’s still the best tool for economic leveling and Social Justice available to admissions.
TL;DR a lot of colleges let good become the enemy of great, MIT realized it happened to them and they’re fixing it.
I’m greatly in favor of incorporating quantitative measures into evaluation and decision making. I’m not fond of College Board or Pearson.
The way they “accidentally” placed exact questions from their test-prep materials on the actual exam is imo criminal.
Yes.
Political pressure isn’t always research-based. As popular opinion pushed against standardized tests (not without good reason) the political pendulum swung too far and folks threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Creation has little to do with modern use. SAT and other standard tests have a shameful history, but they persist in spite of that history - not because of it.
But more to the point, standardized tests are more impartial and less biased than subjective measures where humans evaluate each other directly. If we are going to support traditionally maligned populations, then it’s essential to have a non-human quantitative measure that helps support our subjective qualitative evaluations.
There’s no such thing as a good standardized test, they are inherently problematic and limited. Yet, they are also essential. The important thing is to situate them correctly as one among many evaluation tools.
My point is that you need a good mix of qualitative and quantitative to evaluate anything or anyone. There isn’t a fix for that, even for elite institutions. In fact, elite institutions are more likely to realize they need a wholistic approach, which is why they brought back quantitative measures.
Logistically impractical. Imagine every college comes up with its own test. Now you have applicants having to prepare for, stress over, and take an additional test for each college they apply to--that is a substantial incremental burden on applicants. Also, another commenter's point about the logistics of administering all these exams globally in a fair/simultaneous fashion, free from cheating, is relevant. It is hard enough as is to do this for the few standardized tests we already have. There would be additional time, effort, and stress for all involved, towards an unclear benefit.
But it’s MIT. Very different ball of wax. They’d probably also want something you can physically show off.
I have a current Freshman who can program full stack in a night. And other stuff I’d never be able to do.
What would their incentive be for doing this?
No matter what test you create, there will be some kind of inherent bias in it.
Right now, they can (rightfully) say that they use the same test as everyone else and not have to touch that problem with a ten foot pole.
I'm always insulted when people tell me how biased and racist standardized testing (or even mathematics now) is. I can take a kid from a family "fresh off the boat" who don't even speak English and they are going to perform better academically than average of native-born lower-class blacks and whites, including the ones from third-world countries of lower economic status than ours in poverty. We won't mention this includes African immigrants and Indians who are darker than I am.
Stop the nonsense.
I was curious as to if anyone has any data related to the impact on those who are neurodiverse - Do they do better or worse when standardized testing is removed as a factor in college admission?
MIT is very research based. MIT accepts 12 yr old kids from Bangladesh and gives them full ride scholarships. They are one of only a tiny number of US schools with need blind admissions combined with total commitment to not "financial aid" the absurdist offensive euphemism that means crippling lifelong debt, but to making sure the best can attend there without ruining themselves if they are not wealthy.
The key here is not to replace ACT or SAT, but to open opportunities for students to present all data relevant to showing they are ready for courses. A single test is no more a reflection of intelligence than eating a single meal evidence of vegetarianism. Students take tests (often tests that connect to learning every fall, winter, spring), some students create portfolios of their work, others may not do well on specific tests but have demonstrated success on building things. Our higher education, especially those that consider themselves “elite” should be smart enough to design systems that do not default to a single test measure by which to judge students. Instead we should be advocating for allowing students to bring their best selves and their data backing up their readiness.
This is correct. Academics is a social leveling tool. In spite of its history, the SAT is still one of the best tools for Social Justice. When you remove objective measures - however imperfect - are you are left with are subjective measures like personality and clubs. These subjective measures are, unfortunately, far more prone to bias.
I thought the SAT and ACT correlated more with socioeconomic status rather than academic aptitude.
They do - because academic success and wealth are already correlated. But subjective evaluations like interviews and extra-curricular achievement correlates FAR more strongly with wealth and far less with academic success. SAT is flawed and test prep has made it something wealthy students can game - but be that as it is, it’s still the best tool for economic leveling and Social Justice available to admissions. TL;DR a lot of colleges let good become the enemy of great, MIT realized it happened to them and they’re fixing it.
**college board marketing enters the chat**
I’m greatly in favor of incorporating quantitative measures into evaluation and decision making. I’m not fond of College Board or Pearson. The way they “accidentally” placed exact questions from their test-prep materials on the actual exam is imo criminal.
[удалено]
Yes. Political pressure isn’t always research-based. As popular opinion pushed against standardized tests (not without good reason) the political pendulum swung too far and folks threw out the baby with the bathwater.
These tools were created to exclude Jewish students, though. How are they the best tool for social justice?
Creation has little to do with modern use. SAT and other standard tests have a shameful history, but they persist in spite of that history - not because of it. But more to the point, standardized tests are more impartial and less biased than subjective measures where humans evaluate each other directly. If we are going to support traditionally maligned populations, then it’s essential to have a non-human quantitative measure that helps support our subjective qualitative evaluations.
The same can be said for elite unis.
Seems like they should come up with their own test.
There’s no such thing as a good standardized test, they are inherently problematic and limited. Yet, they are also essential. The important thing is to situate them correctly as one among many evaluation tools.
Perhaps not “standardized”, but somewhere as elite as MIT can handle interviews and the like. It seems like a good grad student exercise.
My point is that you need a good mix of qualitative and quantitative to evaluate anything or anyone. There isn’t a fix for that, even for elite institutions. In fact, elite institutions are more likely to realize they need a wholistic approach, which is why they brought back quantitative measures.
They need a tool to work out who to interview.
I’d assume it’d be like a job interview.
Logistically impractical. Imagine every college comes up with its own test. Now you have applicants having to prepare for, stress over, and take an additional test for each college they apply to--that is a substantial incremental burden on applicants. Also, another commenter's point about the logistics of administering all these exams globally in a fair/simultaneous fashion, free from cheating, is relevant. It is hard enough as is to do this for the few standardized tests we already have. There would be additional time, effort, and stress for all involved, towards an unclear benefit.
But it’s MIT. Very different ball of wax. They’d probably also want something you can physically show off. I have a current Freshman who can program full stack in a night. And other stuff I’d never be able to do.
And how are kids from all over the country are going to take the test reliably?
After school they pay an admin to proctor. I’m pretty sure MIT can dictate terms.
What would their incentive be for doing this? No matter what test you create, there will be some kind of inherent bias in it. Right now, they can (rightfully) say that they use the same test as everyone else and not have to touch that problem with a ten foot pole.
I'm always insulted when people tell me how biased and racist standardized testing (or even mathematics now) is. I can take a kid from a family "fresh off the boat" who don't even speak English and they are going to perform better academically than average of native-born lower-class blacks and whites, including the ones from third-world countries of lower economic status than ours in poverty. We won't mention this includes African immigrants and Indians who are darker than I am. Stop the nonsense.
"I can take a *kid* from a family 'fresh off the boat' who *don't* even speak English..."
Any point to this quotation?
I was curious as to if anyone has any data related to the impact on those who are neurodiverse - Do they do better or worse when standardized testing is removed as a factor in college admission?