I see SAT and GPA
by AquinasDomer (2024-01-09 16:58:03)

In reply to: Weird. Ackman said exactly what you say  posted by airborneirish

Cannot Reply Return to Political

Like height and 40 times. They're useful to a point, but you probably don't want to be like the Raiders of old and draft exclusively on 40 times.

Additionally the top schools have so many applicants that they can pick minority candidates that aren't very different on paper than their white/Asian counterparts. The numeric gaps open up more as you stray away from the top.

Personally I'd like to see the federal government threaten to remove tax benefits on endowments unless schools reduced tuition, scaled up aid, or increased enrollment if they're sitting on the kind of money ND or wealthier schools have. "Winning" in the college arms race has become so divorced from societal aims that we need to change the system's incentives.

Useful to a point?
by BeijingIrish  (2024-01-09 19:41:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Christina Paxson, the president of Brown University, recently wrote, “Standardized test scores are a much better predictor of academic success than high school grades.” See the interesting discussion on standardized testing in there NYT (01/08/24).
I read the article
by AquinasDomer  (2024-01-09 22:01:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I agree it should be used, but it's not the only predictive factor. It's a great way to determine which disadvantaged students are prepared to enroll.

But again, the NBA doesn't just draft the tallest human beings on the planet and the NFL doesn't draft WR's solely based on 40 time.
I dont know that we are saying different things.
by wpkirish  (2024-01-09 23:34:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Per the article even at MIT test scores are the not the main factor but part of the process. My takeaway from the article is the tests are helpful for students who attended schools that traditionally dont send students to the elite schools. For those that regularly send kids the HS work might be as probative.

I also would be interested in a fuller explanation of what they mean disadvantaged kids who have enormous potential even if their test scores arent that high. To me that seems to say there is a recognition that teaching the test makes a difference. I know that is something lots of folks dispute.

I also wonder what role the ncreased extra time allowances are playing in the overall scheme.

My read is that
by AquinasDomer  (2024-01-09 23:57:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

They're not especially teachable and that training for the test has diminishing returns after some studying.

It's testing a combination of overall intelligence combined with a lifetime of learning/education.

A kid from the wrong side of the tracks might never match the kid who's had all the advantages in life, even if given an intense prep course.

The university has to decide if the kid with worse numbers can hack it. And if they'll add something to the school that the other kid can't.