undefined | Better HN

0 pointscivilized3y ago0 comments

Standardized tests are designed to be as non-gameable as possible. They're definitely less gameable than the other admissions criteria still used in elite colleges: admissions essays, playing obscure sports, fancy extracurricular experiences, etc. Most studies find SAT prep confers very limited benefits to the average person.

Having an essay essentially written for you by an expensive consultant with contacts in admissions departments is undetectable and widely practiced. But when it comes to standardized tests, many wealthy families get so desperate for good scores for their kids that they engage in criminal conspiracy (recall the Varsity Blues scandal in 2019).

It's extremely hard for me to see how, when you remove the least gameable aspect of admissions, that it gives the rich less of an advantage. I'm almost certain it gives them more of an advantage instead.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

kenjackson3y ago

The SAT is way more gameable than the College Board would have you believe. Most coaching is not very effective, but there is a group that is very effective. It’s almost by design that they aren’t very popular.

That said it is less gameable than most of the rest of the process. Family wealth and income are probably less gameable, but many schools are need blind.

2 more replies

Zigurd3y ago

14% of Harvard undergrads are legacies. It is exceedingly unlikely that SATs help a higher percentage of deserving but otherwise overlooked applicants.

My point is, there is a way to have a far higher impact on opening seats for kids who should be getting an elite education than the question of whether SATs help or harm attaining that goal. They're not really serious until they don't preference legacies.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse