upvote
I wasn't underprivileged but I did go to a terrible evangelical high school that had no honors or AP classes (AP bio at a place teaching creationism would've been something else...) and I think I only got in to a decent college on the strength of my SAT and ACT scores. My grades were OK (except in bio, where I refused to acknowledge young Earth creationism) but not amazing.
reply
Who gets to set the curriculum is a much bigger deal than given credit for. So many teachers complaining about the shit they have to teach. I remember one who didn't necessarily disagree but wondered why Al Gore should be the one to decide what goes into the [mandatory] documentary (in the Netherlands)
reply
> My grades were OK (except in bio, where I refused to acknowledge young Earth creationism) but not amazing.

This is... Wild.

reply
It's very common in US private schools.
reply
Uh, it's been a while since I've been inside one, but I would guess it's very common in a certain strain of US private schools, not as a rule.
reply
No it is not lol. Incredibly rare
reply
I can't read the article - do they explain why they think this is a "paradox"?
reply
This doesn't exactly answer your question, but MIT added test scores back recently and wrote a blog post explaining why: https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our...

I think the "paradox" is that you'd expect disadvantaged students to perform worse on standardized testing.

reply
Personally, I don't think they actually believe it's paradoxical, I think the authors are just trying to be polite to those who criticize standardized testing with identity politics. Politeness can aid in persuasion, so I don't blame them.
reply
> Preparing for the SAT requires a book and an internet connection.

Sports frequently just requires a ball or a place to run.

In both scenarios, you can still purchase better equipment/training. There are very expensive, effective SAT prep options out there for the wealthy.

reply
That's not the reality for most youth sports anymore. It's gotten much more competitive. Participating in school sports isn't enough. They generally can't develop the level of skill necessary to gain advantage in college admissions without paying a lot to participate in travel club teams and for private coaching. And I'm not talking just about NCAA recruited athletic scholarships but even for the sort of regular extracurricular sports activities that might give someone an advantage in college admissions.
reply
My kids were able to take some SAT test prep course through their school (partially funded by the PTA) and it helped a lot. They wrote a bunch of practice exams and each time their scores went up. Also, test taking itself is a skill and the more you practice it the better you get at it. If you’ve written the SAT 15 times over the past 2 years, then the 16th time won’t be as stressful and you will know strategies that work and the questions will be familiar.

If you are in a school that doesn’t have a well funded PTA, you are at a disadvantage.

reply
You can, as of about a year ago, take official SAT practice exams for free in Google Gemini.
reply
SAT prep is much more than just taking practice exams.
reply
The person to whom I responded seemed to imply that it consists chiefly or entirely of taking practice exams. I merely wish to point out that if you want your kid to take SAT practice exams every month you can do it for free at home.
reply
Such a "SAT test prep course" is going to involve more than just self-guided practice exams. It'll include feedback and coaching to address deficits revealed by those practice exams.
reply
This is exactly right. Writing each practice exam only takes a few hours and this course last months. The reset of the time is filled with all the things you talked about.

Plus, for some kids writing a practice exam at home isn’t the same thing as a simulated seating with kids all around and a proctor in the room.

reply
You seem to be arguing with someone else.
reply
No; I'm saying "just take practice exams" isn't what we're really talking about. They are merely a part of high-end test prep offerings.
reply
deleted
reply
Sports is the most expensive way to get into college. Tennis is close to $1 million to get your kid into an Ivy league through tennis. Malcom Gladwell wrote about sports and colleges in his book "revenge of the tipping point". Sports is used by the wealthy to get their less academically inclined children in to top schools and some school are expanding it.
reply
Your analogy works against you, given that tons of professional athletes come from poverty.
reply
Professional athletes are like people who get 1600s on the SAT; a bit of an outlier.
reply
That's exactly the point. Top schools are looking for outlier intellectual talent, but the egalitarian approach (high school grade inflation plus weakening of standardized testing) smooths the differences and makes it harder for them to admit the right people.

The visible result has been the weakening of these institutions. Do also observe that this is recursive — as these institutions have lowered their standards over decades, the people who go through them and end up leading them are weaker, too.

reply
We're talking about the California state education system here. They do not have the option to restrict the provision of their services to a tiny elite. The concerns of "top schools" absorbs altogether too much oxygen.
reply
IMHO, California state higher education is setup to be tiered. UC > CSU > Community Colleges. If UC is getting a lot of STEM students that need remedial math, I think something has gone wrong. Those students might be better served by getting their math needs met at a community college and transfering to UC later.

For one, why pay UC prices for remedial math? For two, community college has a lot more sections of remedial math and more experience teaching it.

If you're in a degree that doesn't need much math, taking remedial math at UC is probably fine; but all the STEM degrees want at least the full calculus series (afaik).

reply
> Top schools are looking for outlier intellectual talent…

Eh, somewhat. They want some of those outliers hobnobbing with the legacies.

reply
> tons of professional athletes come from poverty

Is that actually the case?

reply
Depends on the sport. I don’t think the Olympic equestrian competitors would be dirt poor.
reply
Read up on Kobe Bryant or Bronny James.
reply
Sure, those are some good counterexamples: both sons of professional athletes. And there are plenty of others.

On the other hand, we have: Allen Iverson, Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal, Carmelo Anthony, Michael Vick, Bo Jackson, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Fernando Valenzuela, Albert Pujols, Jim Thorpe, ...

Oh, and LeBron James himself!

So my view is that people of both rich and poor upbringings have a good chance in the sports world these days, at least for those sports where the necessary gear is relatively cheap.

reply
Times have changed. Due to the rise of expensive youth travel club sports leagues I suspect we will see fewer poor children turn professional. There will always be a few outliers but if you don't have access to top coaching and extra competitive playing time prior to college then you're really at a disadvantage.
reply
According to IA this is mostly a myth though.
reply
Whatever gates you put up, the wealthy can fire cannons of cash at them. You just have to pick the ones least vulnerable to cash barrages.

What is the marginal gain of expensive SAT prep? Versus just doing hundreds of mock tests out of some prep book, like SWEs grinding LeetCode?

reply
It feels like the problem are the SAT prep courses' existence then
reply
I don't think it's paradoxical at all. This was the original strength of the SAT system.
reply
I've been wondering with all the data that's available now couldn't admissions look at a 4.0 from HS A vs a 4.0 at HS B and then compare those to actual grades on the campus once students were in class? Assuming HS A has lower standards, they should be able to tell that a 4.0 isnt as meaningful as a 4.0 from HS B. Seems like a straightforward exercise.
reply
And SAT as high school math exam itself I think is way too easy. They should design another test which can clearly distinguish top 1% or even 0.1%.from others
reply
When I was in high school in California more than 20 years ago, SAT math alone was insufficient for admissions to STEM programs at mid-ranked and top-ranked universities. I was required to take the SAT Math IIC subject test, which went up to pre-calculus. We were also strongly encouraged to take calculus in high school. There are two AP Calculus exams: AB (which covers the first semester of university calculus) and BC (which covers the first two semesters).
reply
Yes, the scores at the top are way too bunched. A perfect score should indicate generational genius, not the 100th smartest kid your year in California.
reply
That's not a real problem for UC admissions. They accept thousands of students every year. Anyone who scores near perfect (within the margin of error) should be admitted to at least one UC campus. If that's not happening then the problem is with the admissions criteria, not with the SAT.
reply
There are already such tests. They're called International ___ Olympiad.
reply
[dead]
reply
The problem is as never the tests. It was pretending that the difference between a 600 and 625 (or whatever) really predicted anything.

It was the silly idea that with tests you could produce a fair ordering of students based on potential to succeed.

reply
You can absolutely make a bet on who's more likely to succeed based on a 100 point difference, though. It's not absolute, but it's highly predictive. And the reason the SAT was dropped wasn't because admissions were being forced to blindly accept 620 over 610 (they never were), but so that people who scored hundreds of points below the mean could be admitted (in the pursuit of other institutional goals).
reply
We have decades of data (test score vs grades and degree completion). They should gather it up and calculate the answers.

Flip answer: the bucket width should be 2.5 times the score improved of a prep course.

reply
Any working system has to rely on some arbitrary rules. Drawing a line between students who scored 600 and 625 is still infinitely better than drawing it based on the decision-makers' moods.
reply
Or, treat 600-625 as a tie, and use a lottery.
reply
As imperfect standardized tests are, they are still more fair and less biased than using arbitrary judgement on extra curriculars
reply
Bucket to the observed predictive power of the score, resolve ties with a lottery .
reply
Would this be fixed buckets? I.e. would you treat 649-650 more predictive than 648-649? Presumably that wouldn't work. I'm sure there's some algorithm that could do this but it seems subtle.

Obviously, if a school has a cutoff score bucketing is easy, but with excess applicants ordering becomes necessary. I guess this sort of probabilistic score would induce an order for any given student relative to sufficiently superior or inferior applicants.... I'm now kinda curious to figure this problem out. Did not expect an algorithms problem to arise in this thread lol

reply
who uses SAT scores as "potential succeed"??
reply
The original argument for standardized tests was to pick based on how well you would do in university (vs who your parents know).
reply