Killing the SAT To Help Underprivileged Students Actually Benefits Rich Kids
It's time to retire the idea that getting rid of standardized tests increases equality.

A new study published on Monday shows that even when controlling for test scores, children from wealthy families have a higher chance of being accepted to an elite college than their middle-class counterparts. Further, the study found that applicants from families in the top 0.1 percent have over double the chance of being accepted to an elite institution than the average applicant.
The study, conducted by a team of Harvard and Brown University researchers, examined admissions data from a group of 12 "Ivy-Plus" colleges—the eight Ivy Leagues, plus Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Duke University, and the University of Chicago. The study found that students from the 1 percent were much more likely to be admitted to these elite colleges, even when controlling for standardized test scores. It concluded that this admissions gap is primarily due to three main factors: admissions preferences for children of alumni, athlete recruitment, and the weight placed on nonacademic criteria, like extracurriculars and teacher recommendations.

"The three key factors that give children from high-income families an admissions advantage are uncorrelated or negatively correlated with post-college outcomes, whereas SAT/ACT scores and academic credentials are highly predictive of post-college success," the study authors note.
While the study found that attending an Ivy-Plus university instead of a state flagship university didn't dramatically increase students' average future earnings, it nonetheless found that attending an elite university increased a student's likelihood of entering the 1 percent by 60 percent, almost doubled their chance of attending an elite graduate school, and tripled their likelihood of working at a prestigious firm.
As an alternative to current practices, the study proposed that colleges eliminate legacy preferences, athlete preferences, and the emphasis on nonacademic criteria like extracurriculars and teacher ratings.
"Under such an admissions policy, the share of students attending Ivy-Plus colleges from the bottom 95% of the parental income distribution would rise by 8.7 percentage points, adding 144 students from families earning less than $240,000 (the 95th percentile) to a typical Ivy-Plus college," the authors state. "This increase of 144 students from lower-income and middle class families is similar to the reduction in the number of Black and Hispanic students that would arise from eliminating race-based affirmative action policies absent any other changes in admissions practices."
The study provides yet more evidence that the recent move to ditch SAT and ACT test requirements in favor of a higher emphasis on nonacademic measurements will end up hurting low-income students rather than helping them. While a move away from standardized testing has been hailed as a move to increase racial and economic equality, a greater reliance on admissions essays, extracurriculars, and teacher ratings will make it harder for talented yet disadvantaged students to prove themselves when applying to elite universities. One 2021 study backed this up, finding that student essays were more closely correlated with income than SAT scores.
This shouldn't be surprising. Tests are simply harder to game than nonacademic factors. Wealthy families can hire tutors to write polished admissions essays for their children, ensure they have a battery of extracurricular activities and sports, and make sure they attend schools where skilled guidance counselors know how to write a glowing letter about an applicant. Expensive test prep, on the other hand, is limited in its efficacy. And simply taking practice tests—which are widely available online for free—seems to be the most effective way to study.
While this study isn't likely to single-handedly end the popular idea that getting rid of standardized tests is a surefire way to help disadvantaged students, it provides yet more evidence that, for those who want to level the playing field in the world of elite college admissions, standardized tests are indispensable.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So Reason goes full racist.
Racist or anti-racist?
Racist. Standardized testing is racist. Period. Q.E.D.
Anti-racist is also racist, so technically standardized testing is both racist and anti-racist at the same time. It's whatever you want it to be.
Yes, it's Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X Kendi "anti-racist": Stormfront in a pair of pumps and an HR badge.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Make money online from home extra cash more than 18000 to 21000 Dollars. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received 26000 Dollars in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job by.
.
.
HERE====)>> https://trendingsalary.blogspot.com/
That sounds like a Netflix series.
It was supposed to feature a Secretary of Human Relations in an admiral's uniform , but the scientologists complained.
From the NEA article, a large picture of *coughs* Ibram X Kendi for supporting evidence:
No wonder reason was tagged as 'disinformation'.
Kendi: any test (or anything else) that he can't use to promote CRT is a failure.
Diane Reynolds (Paul.) 2 hours ago
So Reason goes full racist.
Later...
No wonder reason was tagged as ‘disinformation’.
Jesus titty-fucking CHRIST Almighty, are you in FAVOR or AGAINST one of the VERY few institutions in the USA (Reason.com and magazine) that FAVORS individual rights and DISFAVORS constant obsessions about tribalism and skin-color? Which is it? Which side of the fence do YOU shit upon? Or are you of the tribe of "whoever I can snark at today, and look like the Oh-So-Smart One", in hopes that you can join Marxist Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer (AKA Mother's Lament, with a Perfect Head full of Cement) ass a politically Almighty QUEEN of the Internet Cesspools?
Comedy might not be your thing.
NEA. Now there's a joke. Their main reason for being against "standardized testing" is that it shows the piss poor job that their "Union" teachers are doing. Get rid of the testing and play up the so called "advantages" that others have gives them an excuse for doing a shitty job.
Isn't the president of the NEA Becky Pringle?
Go to the NEA web site and look up her most recent speach, or you can find links to it on any number of sites pointing out some of the strange things she said.
No, I do NOT take the NEA statements as a "Q.E.D." proof.
Q.E.F/U. I'll bet grades and class rankings are racist, too, huh Dianne? 'Cause if you ain't racist we is all the same!
And if you eliminate "athlete preference", do you think that would increase or decrease student body "diversity" in major NCAA universities?
BTW, are you concerned about the significant racial imbalances on NCAA college teams, or in the NFL and NBA? Why not? Those teams certainly don't "look like America". How about some quotas for the underrepresented minorities - I'll bet there's a big demand for 5'8", 140 lb. Oriental fullbacks and power forwards. In New York, at least, (the obese shortly to become a protected class) shouldn't each pro team have at least one morbidly obese (round) player? Or is "concern" like most streams - it only flows one way?
Now come on up out of that rabbit hole.
Is that like being VC or well disciplined VC?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,950 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,950 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
"Athlete recruitment" as one of the main causes is all kinds of fun.
We need to reconsider standardized testing because the Yale crew team is too white and MIT's football recruiting efforts suck.
Yale crew team too white? Phsaw.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
MIT Football is almost like a parody. Technology on par with your average suburban school district's Middle School, but all affluent white kids.
Harvard dropped its SAT requirement in 2021.
They dropped all credibility admitting David Hogg.
Never go full racist.
Not a problem. Progressives say that the government should just pay for everyone to go to college, and simply tax the rich to pay for it.
Sure, but only if all the elite kids can go to Harvard.
As part of my work with some non-profits, I have seen how this absurd concentration on "Lived experiences" has completely walled off schools from a large majority of kids. It is now the Rich people with the "Secret Knock" and the poor kids they allow to hang around as a sign of their beneficence.
Schools that have ditched the standardized tests and GPA instead look at alternative parts of a college resume. That includes stuff like setting up a non-profit, creating inventions or small businesses, and collaborating on published research. At first blush, this would seem like a great way to find the truly exceptional kids.
In reality, there are dozens of "college prep academies" in my city that offer "application enhancement" programs. In about a month of courses, your "student" will attend classes where they create a website for their Non-Profit, including a bunch of official looking events and fundraisers. Then you will create an App for the Google Play store that uses some half-working open-source machine learning to complete some mundane task (identify a song you are listening to and list any popular covers) and then you will publish a paper on its creation with the other 30 kids in your class, to be "presented" at some international symposium on neural-adaptive linguistics.
Understand that ALL of this is complete vaporware bullshit. I have followed up on several of these kids' resumes and found that their non profit is some word-press template with "events" that are clearly a couple friends organizing to pick up trash in a parking lot or take food to a food bank- but just hidden under layers of official looking non-profit stuff. The app is a buggy POS that won't run on your phone- or if it does, it connects to a free Google Cloud collab instance that went down 3 months ago and was never rebooted. And the "Symposium" was held at the Winnipeg Hilton's business conference center.
All this can be bought for several thousand dollars and- more importantly- the right contacts who are talking with the admissions officers and who know what this year's "hot resume items" are. If you are a kid who worked hard at school, tough shit. I know kids who were president of the ASB (student council), varsity players with 5.0 GPA who didn't get into a single state school. Because they were chumps who worked hard instead of playing the game.
The universities have more incentive than ever to ditch standardized testing. Now that their racist admissions policies were thrown out, they need to de-emphasize standardized testing, so they can lean into more subjective stuff that will still take race into account, but satisfy the letter of the SCOTUS ruling.
Yep.
"The universities have more incentive than ever to ditch standardized testing."
Let's hope so. And while they're at it, ditch the faux objectivity that standardized tests afford. Every student is an individual and deserves to be treated like one. It's no different an employer looking to take on an employee.
I hope you choose your surgeons and pilots without any objective criteria.
"I hope you choose your surgeons and pilots without any objective criteria."
It was objective criteria that saw to the admission of 19 gentlemen from the middle east to various pilot schools. A more subjective approach, 'so, Ishmael, why don't you want to learn how to land?' would have saved us all a lot of trouble.
The only standard for pilot lessons is money dumdum. To pay for flight time and training. Licensing does require a test and validated flight time, but that's bought for.
Did you go to community College? It is similar. Even retards can attend so you have a chance.
"The only standard for pilot lessons is money dumdum"
There's nothing more objective than money.
I surely hope that is sarcasm. Yes every student is an individual, so in assessing the ones that are most likely to be able to handle the particular course competencies, some means must be established to avoid unfairly treating a prospective student by admitting them to a class they cannot handle and nonetheless keeping their tuition money when they flunk out. Standardized tests are an effective way to measure that ability. "Grades" are not as we all know grade inflation occurs and different teachers may grade differently. For example, I understood from my performance that math and the sciences, much as I loved the courses, was not my strong suit and instead I majored in liberal arts which paved my way for law school -- on the strength of both SAT and LSAT scores.
"Standardized tests are an effective way to measure that ability."
Effective and cheap. But they don't 'level the playing field.' If you want to give the disadvantaged and those whose potential hasn't been fully met a leg up, then subjective means are a way to achieve that.
Because they were chumps who worked hard instead of playing the game.
Sadly, being able to "play the game" seems to be a much better predictor of success than hard work.
All this can be bought for several thousand dollars and- more importantly- the right contacts who are talking with the admissions officers and who know what this year’s “hot resume items” are.
I've heard that there are consultants you can hire who'll add stuff to your school resume like "rowing team".
And no one will check whether your high school has a rowing team...
I really do have to scratch my head at some of these "studies" that Reason likes to use as the core for articles. It seems like there has been an abundance of these things that state ridiculously obvious things long after anyone with 2 brain cells could figure it out.
Money, power, and privilege allows a person to gain more money, power, and privilege. Rich kids will always have a leg up because the resources are at their disposal to force whatever outcome they want through whatever means are necessary. Mandate a test and the person with money and connections can get a copy of that test and the best tutors. A lower class teen will likely have to work and help with family thereby lessening their time. No time, resources, and connections makes everything harder
The only fair thing is to take kids from parents and raise them in government boarding schools. Just ask the Indians.
"Mandate a test and the person with money and connections can get a copy of that test and the best tutors." I got 1590 out of 1600, with no tutors, and no test prep except working my way through the free practice test. (I suspect the 10 points I lost were from being careless on one of the many ridiculously easy math questions.)
So how much good does all the expensive prep do, short of corruption that makes the actual test and answer key available, rather than the free practice tests the SAT has always provided? But would even that work? IIRC, when I took the SAT long ago, there were 4 different test books handed out randomly - anyone trying to cheat by buying an answer sheet and memorizing it would have 4 sets of answers to memorize, for 4 three-hour tests. IMHO, except for a few idiot savants, anyone lacking the skills to do well taking the test honestly couldn't handle all that memorization without fouling up.
"The app is a buggy POS that won’t run on your phone- or if it does, it connects to a free Google Cloud collab instance that went down 3 months ago and was never rebooted. "
Smart phone apps can be tricky. A client asked me for an Android app, which worked according to his specs. It didn't work on his iphone though, and my work was ultimately rejected.
"an App for the Google Play store that uses some half-working open-source machine learning to complete some mundane task (identify a song you are listening to and list any popular covers) and then you will publish a paper on its creation with the other 30 kids in your class, to be “presented” at some international symposium on neural-adaptive linguistics."
In fairness, this doesn't sound all that removed from the academic busywork characteristic of research in higher education, arts and science, alike.
In fairness, this doesn’t sound all that removed from the academic busywork characteristic of research in higher education, arts and science, alike.
Sadly, you're not wrong.
And the poor/working class kid, who does normal things like, I don’t know, get a JOB, doesn’t have time to do the kind of “extra-curricular” things these colleges look for. He/she just learns the real tools of working in a REAL company instead of “interning” for his parents or their friends. He certainly doesn't get school credit.
And getting an academic paper "published" in high school is now a cottage industry for kids (and parents) looking for an admissions edge:
https://nypost.com/2023/05/24/parents-pay-10k-to-get-kids-published-for-college-apps/
More than 10,000 high school students have funneled through dozens of online programs such as Scholar Launch and Lumiere Education, which pair them with academic mentors to churn out research papers which are then published by research journals. Kids able to pay for the qualification can then tack “published author” onto their resumé. There’s a surprisingly long list of journals fielding high school paper submissions for a fee, with acceptance rates ranging from 5% up through 80%.
You even get a "mentor" to help you write the paper.
“…. identify a song you are listening to and list any popular covers)
Oh, I got this one! Tracy Chapmans “fast car”, which literally got zero attention until it was culturally appropriated by some hillbilly country cracker dude, depriving this brave queer black woman the credit she deserves.
Harvard here I come!
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
The rich parent pay more to get their kids slots in the nice schools. Just like they pay more to drive nicer cars and stay at nicer hotels and eat at more expensive restaurants, etc. I'm not sure what the whole point is here?
I think the point is to challenge the idea that admissions are supposed to be need blind, or merit based. But I don't know who really believed that to begin with.
I don’t know who really believed that to begin with.
Chumps.
I think Overt hits on the reason for most of this. The elite universities are in such high demand that perfect grades and SAT scores aren't enough to distinguish a student without some kind of diversity hook. So rich kids whose parents can subsidize their setting up a fake non-profit, or other virtue signaling extra-curricular activities have a much easier time getting in than, for example, a poor or middle class kid who is every bit as smart and motivated, but has to work, or watch younger siblings, or has parents who don't give a shit.
Don't forget legacy admissions like George W. Bush who was a "C" average student who still managed to get into Yale University and then into Harvard Business School due to daddy Bush and granddaddy Bush being alumni. It must be nice to study in a library section with your surname on it. (Prescott Walker Bush Memorial Wing)
Keep in mind that Bush was a C student before grade inflation was a thing. His C’s were likely equivalent to an A- today. Plus schools are shit now. Although probably not at the ones he attended.
And had a higher GPA than Kerry. Probably Obama too.
Carter and Clinton were both exceptionally gifted intellectually/academically. Carter was the only president in a long long time with any close familiarity with math and science.
I hope so, he was a nuclear engineer.
You don't have to be all that precise with nukes.
When it’s a nuclear reactor, and you’re living _with_ it in a submerged 337 foot steel tube, you’d better be precise.
Carter never actually served on a nuclear submarine. He trained for submarine nuclear plant operations and was slated to serve on the USS Seawolf – the second US nuclear-powered sub – just as soon as it was built, but his father got cancer and he took a compassionate discharge to go home and sell peanuts. It’s clear that the Navy thought he was capable of overseeing the operation of nuke power in a submarine back then, no matter how universally incompetent he looked 25 years later as President. It's easier to attain competence in a narrow field.
However, nuclear "engineer" in the sense of being an engineering officer on a ship is quite different from being an actual nuclear engineer that can design a nuclear power plant or other device.
He was indeed very smart scientifically. Just a terrible leader -- his brains for science did not translate well into running a country. Different skillset required.
I've heard that at some unnamed universities, if you're connected to a family that has basically underwritten the small-state school for years, you can write a paper about "Client Retention at Community Colleges" and get a doctorate from the University of Delaware.
What?
Apparently the "researchers" have never heard of confounding. The one percent are more likely to be admitted to elite universities and more likely to "enter the one percent?" Who could ever have guessed that the children of wealthy families would become ... wealthy?!
It would come as a surprise to most lottery winners.
But not if their parents were also lottery winners.
Is anyone surprised that this whole system is almost perfectly designed to generate "Government By Midwit" after observing how we are currently governed?
Did anyone (Emma?) notice that on the graph, those who are between the 70th and 99th percentiles for wealth have a lower than average acceptance while those below the 70th and above the 99th percentiles have a greater than average chance of acceptance?
... and the area under the <70th %ile is larger than the area under the 70th-99th %ile.
... and it's a log scale.
It's an odd curve. If wealth alone was causing it, I'd expect the curve to start under the average and climb from there, but it doesn't. Instead, there's a drop below average about the 70th percentile that goes back above average at the 99th percentile.
I'm curious as to the provenance of this graph.
Yeah, I could see a fairly straightforward narrative where wealth makes sense but between relatively "likelier"s and log scales it's hard to be sure some *very* Simpson's Paradox-esque* bullshit isn't going on here.
"I’m curious as to the provenance of this graph."
Learn to read and follow links!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html
I’m curious as to the provenance of Your Perfect Reality-Denying Tribalism. NY Times is LEFTIST, and THAT is all that You need to ASSert to refute ALL that they say, right, right-wing wrong-nut?
My guess would be that you're seeing the impact of a process generally weighted against those with financial advantages, but that also shows the limit at which any attempt to limit financial advantage fails (at both ends, but with a more pronounced effect on the high end).
Easy -- the 99th %ers know how to game the system. And the bottom 70%ers have a better story to tell of overcoming adversity, or fit into more favored groups for admission.
You are never going to get rich as an employee, no matter your education.
Be the employer.
You can if you’re highly paid and invest well.
Lots of employees have. Far more than who have done it as an employer.
That depends on how rich you require "rich" to mean. It's possible to get a salary + bonuses of tens of millions per year, and save up enough that your grandchildren will either be well-off or an example of gross and sustained wastefulness, but I don't think anyone ever saved a billion dollars from a salaried job. To do that, save your salary and invest it in your own business - then be smart, daring, and lucky.
Meh, I've been an employee for the vast majority of my career (including the last 25 years) and I am retiring comfortably this year at age 60.
Be yourself. Unless you can be Elon Musk. Then you should be Elon Musk!
I would counsel every teenager today to just claim to be black, regardless of their actual background. Maybe one or two schools will do some verification but most wont have the guts to question it. You'll get into a much better school than you would otherwise.
>>to just claim to be black
C. Thomas Howell on line 2 ...
"I would counsel every teenager today to just claim to be black, regardless of their actual background. "
You're not too smart though, and certainly didn't attend an elite school. Instead, do what Obama did during his years as a student. Ample use of the word "folks" in any written submissions to teachers or administrators. It got him an offer of a tenured position at Chicago on the strength of an extremely thin resume of academic publishing and 'community organizing.'
Just change your given name to D'Quavarius, Then you won't even have to answer the "race" question. The DEI folks will be automatically on your side. For great justice.
Maybe it would work better to claim to be a tiny bit "Native American". No one can disprove that by just looking at you, since if you look at nearly any Indian tribe, you'll find 1/8 Indian registered members that look as white as George Bush.
The study, conducted by a team of Harvard and Brown University researchers…
What did they do, ask around at the DC soirée they were attending?
Everyone knows that Sasha and Malia Obama are disadvantaged compared to the kids of Vietnamese Boat People and Eastern Ky coal miners
They're both double legacy at Harvard. Father and grandfather.
And got extra points on their standardized tests, due to their skin color. So disadvantaged.
>>time to retire the idea that getting rid of standardized tests increases equality.
equality should not be a goal of education.
Education destroys equality. That's why the Amish forbid it.
I worked with Amish folks, and in their areas of expertise they are very well-educated indeed. In "Deconstructing Racist Subtext in Tolkein" or "Interrogating Gendered Spaces in Comic Strips 1935-1950", maybe they fall short.
It's a trade-off they're willing to make.
I don't see much inequality among the Amish. There are bishops and there are ordinary church members, but if it's spring time, on Monday morning they're all walking behind horse-drawn plows.
Maybe, just maybe, if they embraced education they would develop some improvements on those horse-drawn plows. After all, if God allows working of metal to create a plow, seems there would be a way for other enhanced farming techniques to fit within their particular dogma.
"for those who want to level the playing field in the world of elite college admissions, standardized tests are indispensable."
I'm not convinced. Standardized tests providing a level playing field assumes that those taking the tests have a standardized educational background and experience. Clearly they don't as each school district and each student is unique.
And the idea that our goal should be a level playing field is also a problem. The process should be tilted to favor those who have the greatest potential to benefit from higher education, rather than already demonstrable excellence. Accepting those with the highest SAT scores suffers from diminished marginal returns on education, while going for potential will be harder measure, but will give a bigger bang for the buck.
Let’s all believe in magic!
You mean belief in a ‘level playing field?’ I disagree for reasons stated above.
Distinguishing between potential and actual past performance is exactly what standardized testing is for.
Take it up with the author. She claims it's to 'level the playing field.'
Standardized test scores quantify objectively how well (or poorly) public schools are educating our children. The teachers' unions and the education industry overall do not want to be held accountable; so, they abolish the primary metric of their performance.
Meh, I think they test reasoning and logic more than just knowledge. Knowledge is what schools/parents teach. Reasoning and logic is more innate and what these tests should be testing as that is a better predictor of success. I know they have for years been working on removing questions that require background knowledge that could have racially diverse implications. It may not be perfect, but it's much better than relying on grades alone.
"Meh, I think they test reasoning and logic more than just knowledge. "
Everyone who enters a school like Harvard has superior skills in reasoning and logic. What separates the sheep from the goats is diligent study habits. Many superior students sail through high school getting top marks with no effort. Once they are among their peers in Harvard, for example, their lack of studiousness takes its toll.
Fortunately there is already a test case. Cal Tech admits students based on test scores and academics, not the "well balanced" criteria of the Ivies. The nerdy students do great.
"The nerdy students do great."
They were doing great while still in high school. They will likely continue doing great after their college years. It's those with unrealized potential that we should be focusing on. Those with the great marginal returns.
So...we should *handicap* the most gifted? I see. Because "marginal returns". Okay, Ms. Glampers.
We have to handicap someone. The elite schools aren't big enough to accommodate everyone.
How about some diversity in the most elite government positions, based on universities attended. Why should SCOTUS be an Ivy club?
For real diversity, how about some high school dropouts on the bench?
"For real diversity",
How about a bigger bench, with more variety of professional experience. One can excel in life without excelling at school.
Did any of the Princeton Supremes belong to the Ivy club ?
Do you really expect anyone to believe that poor kids don't apply to elite schools in the same proportions as rich kids?
I mean, cost is never a consideration anymore is it?
What a waste of ones and zeros.
Anything about rich kids being more likely to have gone to a private school, giving them an academic advantage over public school students?
Make $9,000-$12,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And Choose Your Own Work Hours.
Thanks, A lot Start here
Open This Website.............................>> https://www.dailypay7.com/
Yikes, how in the world can people look at that graphic and then worry first about affirmative action corrupting the admissions process?! Look at that curve!
The Ivy Leagues clearly are nothing more than playgrounds for the richest 1% of the 1% and their brood of "elite" students.
Too bad for you if your family's income is in the 90th percentile! You guys have it the worst. You're not nearly rich enough to be elite, but still too rich to be considered a charity case.
The value of an Ivy education is the connections you make and always has been.” It’s a big club and you and I are not in it” -George Carlin.
Yep, these are the people who hold the highest positions in government and business. No matter how woke they claim to be, they are not going to step down anytime soon.
While the study found that attending an Ivy-Plus university instead of a state flagship university didn't dramatically increase students' average future earnings, it nonetheless found that attending an elite university increased a student's likelihood of entering the 1 percent by 60 percent
How is this possible? Mathematically, it seems close to being a contradiction. Do they enter the top 1 percent, but just barely and for one year only, so that their "average" earnings do not increase "dramatically"?
Lifetime average vs. average for a few years and then moving up rapidly because of who you know (and the lessons learned from those whose families have been there and done that, since you're rubbing elbows with them.)
The stupid people in this [Na]tional So[zi]alist empire need MORE Gov-Guns of theft and entitlement.
Or maybe it's just easier to steal and get away with it than to take the time to learn, work and become a benefactor to humanity/society. A premise so indoctrinated in today's society most seem to thing 'guns' make stuff.
Leftard Equality *is* about cancelling Justice and *EARNING* anything and replacing it with barbaric selfish-greed. Which is entirely unsustainable because 'guns' don't make stuff or brains or competency or anything else. Their only asset to humanity at large is to ensure Liberty and Justice for all.
"When the Party controls the dispensation of all wealth and goods, the Party is secure."
"Did you read my essay, 'My experience learning about poverty through my study abroad in Peru?'"
"No, but the point is that we have a gym and a dorm named after your family."
No surprise there. The benefit of a standardized test is that it, is, well, standardized. It's a level playing field. The argument against it was that children from a disadvantaged home don't have the same vocabulary, but they had 17 years to develop it. The other argument was that expensive SAT coaching could raise your score by 100 points. But I raised mine by 100 points (vs. the PSAT) by buying a 20 dollar book with some practice tests.
Take away the objective assessment, and you're left with teacher recommendations (where teachers at elite schools are much better at writing them), life experiences like traveling abroad or volunteering in the Third World (bought and paid for by well-off parents), or (perhaps most surprisingly) qualifying for an athletic team in some obscure rich-kid sport (thanks to private coaches, expensive summer camps, and touring teams).
No surprise there. The benefit of a standardized test is that it, is, well, standardized. It’s a level playing field.
Everyone runs on the same track in the Olympics as well. Do you really think that an athlete with a well-funded training program has the same chance as winning as an athlete that doesn't?
Malcom Gladwell called to say you are myopic.
I put "Captain, Varsity Quoits Team" on mine. But it was kind of a joke because I underapplied and went to the nearest school. I'd already knocked up a Catholic girl by 17 and had a job. Not the kind of "extracurriculars" they wanted, even back then.
The whole point of using subjective measures like essays is that since they are subjective, the universities can cheat on them as much as they want to let in the underprivileged (meaning "black, but especially not Asian".) The fact that essays benefitted the rich in the past tells you nothing because the universities don't have to cheat the same amount that they did in the past.
That's not the *whole* point. It may be how the University ultimately uses them but, nominally, the sum total of knowledge or intellect cannot be reduced to a multiple choice, true/false test.
Look at the left side of the graph though. Holistic admissions prefers the top 0.1% (who make up 3% of Harvard's class), but also the bottom 60% (who are >20%). Even if the latter group gets less benefit per capita, most of the benefit accrues to them.
Face it, the anti-meritocracy movement is genuinely pro-poor and pro-minority. You're not going to win by out-Equitying them.
Yeah, because de-emphasizing testing for competence ensures a steady stream of unqualified minority students to fill the "Gender Studies, Grievance Acquisition Studies (Black studies), Woman's Studies, and Queer Studies" classes. Of course, these non-productive "majors" produce graduates who mainly become professors of the "Studies", which requires more students, either by admission or administrative diktat.
Not a path to excellence.
Why would anybody want to attend any of those schools?
Meet people who will be business connections throughout your entire career, increase number of potential employers upon graduation, and increase your salary at your first post-college job.
That's just off the top of my head.
Also to become part of the ruling UniParty! Don't forget that one.
Why would anybody want to attend any of those schools?
Did you see the part where it talked about the much higher likelihood of earning in the top 1% of incomes, working at prestigious businesses, attending top graduate schools, becoming a CEO, and so on? Think only about the liberal “indoctrination” at these schools all you want, but there is no doubt that these schools are the preferred path to whatever qualifies as “elite” in this country.
"...To Help Underprivileged Students ..."
LOL Reason might be more credible if they didn't take leftist assertions of motive at face value as a matter of routine.
Is this really a surprise to anyone that is honestly looking at the situation? The real truth is that the opposition to standardized testing has nothing to do with "helping" the underprivileged. Yeah, that is the argument, mostly by progressives. But it is one more example of bias. Just like support for affirmative action, housing first plans to combat homelessness, no cash bail, and pretty much anything to do with prison reform (other than minor drug offenses). Progressives are the most biased and racist folks in the country, which is probably why they piss off the folks wearing white sheets so much. If you think that everyone that isn't like you is helpless and can only survive with your help you might be more of a problem than a solution.
Meh, I think they test reasoning and logic more than just knowledge. Knowledge is what schools/parents teach. Reasoning and logic is more innate and what these tests should be testing as that is a better predictor of success. I know they have for years been working on removing questions that require background knowledge that could have racially diverse implications. It may not be perfect, but it's much better than relying on grades alone.
Good point. Grades are too subjective. They are based on teacher style, and yes bias, and can differ greatly from teacher to teacher and school to school. Grades are too much a functioning of parroting what a teacher or school book, good or bad, says.
I certainly agree. But is this the same Emma Camp who wrote three years ago, "The University should go test-optional permanently
In order to have a more equitable admissions process, the University must go test-optional"?
https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2020/10/camp-the-university-should-go-test-optional-permanently
There's the ivy league, Harvard etc, and there are well established state universities, like Arizona, Michigan, California, New York, Ohio, Texas to name a few of the more notable examples. So, entry into the ivy league is extremely difficult, and the entry into the state universities is relatively easy. My question, is it also easier to get a degree from the state universities? Are they less rigorous, with lower standards, lower expectations? I figure the text books they use are the same as those used in the ivy league, so perhaps graduates from both are essentially equal. The ivy league employs a lot of world renowned scholars, but they aren't necessarily any good at teaching.
I work an online job from home and earn 185 dollars per hour. I never imagined I could do it, but my best friend, who makes $15,000 a month at the job, encouraged me to find out more about it. This has limitless possibilities.
.
.
Details Are Here—————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com