undefined | Better HN

0 pointslokar11mo ago0 comments

But why should it be harder? Why should the goal be to produce a fine gradation of ability?

Why not just evaluate a cut-off for “very likely to do well” and then make it random?

It’s not like the narrow set of skills measured by the test are all there is to doing well at university. They are never going to be fully predictive.

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

yifanl11mo ago· 3 in thread

Because it feels bad to know you didn't make the cut because you were unlucky since there's nothing you could have done better.

Sufficient preparation can mitigate low scores, they can't mitigate bad luck.

:s/preparation/wealth/g

BeFlatXIII11mo ago

Luck meant you had the same chance as everyone else who met the cutoff; the other factors may highlight systemic problems, depending on which was dominant.

lokarOP11mo ago

I see that, but does it not feel equally bad to know you did not make the cut, despite being just as likely to succeed, because of wealth, race, religion, connections etc?

yifanl11mo ago

Yes, but generally speaking, those who lack wealth are not in positions of power, and therefore we can ignore them.

programjames11mo ago· 1 in thread

Well, your previous comment brought up the issue that 50 points on the SAT doesn't really predict anything universities care about. I was just trying to show how we could fix this problem by making the tests harder. I'm not claiming they're fully predictive, and that feels like moving the goalposts.

I'm very aware there are things a test can't measure. I feel like you should have been the one to bring up these things, but here are a few examples:

- Artistic creativity

- Maker ability

- Entrepeunership

- Political power

I think the issue is, since you didn't identify what a test is missing out on, you weren't sure how to take it into account with university admissions. I have a question for you: do you think someone who is just below the cutoff based on the test, but started a business worth $10m, just does not deserve to be entered into the lottery? That'd be propesterous. So, what is the solution? More holistic admissions that try to take into account these harder-to-put-a-number-on skills.

lokarOP11mo ago

I was really just talking about evaluating students in their 3rd year of high school. There is really not all that much to go on in terms of drawing a really specific line with any precision. But they sure like to pretend.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

yifanl11mo ago· 3 in thread

Because it feels bad to know you didn't make the cut because you were unlucky since there's nothing you could have done better.

Sufficient preparation can mitigate low scores, they can't mitigate bad luck.

:s/preparation/wealth/g

BeFlatXIII11mo ago

Luck meant you had the same chance as everyone else who met the cutoff; the other factors may highlight systemic problems, depending on which was dominant.

lokarOP11mo ago

I see that, but does it not feel equally bad to know you did not make the cut, despite being just as likely to succeed, because of wealth, race, religion, connections etc?

yifanl11mo ago

Yes, but generally speaking, those who lack wealth are not in positions of power, and therefore we can ignore them.

programjames11mo ago· 1 in thread

I'm very aware there are things a test can't measure. I feel like you should have been the one to bring up these things, but here are a few examples:

- Artistic creativity

- Maker ability

- Entrepeunership

- Political power

lokarOP11mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse