The key part that is glossed over is that Columbia is making SATs optional, so if a candidate is amazing in all ways except they are a poor test taker, they do not have to submit a test score.
And the author also tries to correlate SATs with the Armed Forces aptitude tests, the latter which weeds out those at the far bottom end of aptitude versus making hitting a high bar a requirement for entry. Once in, recruits are judged by other means. And while what he says is true about how poorly those low scoring recruits faired, a big reason they died at a higher rate was that they were assigned to infantry at a higher rate, so were more often put in harms way.
Finally, why do we assume the SATs are fair? I was fairly good at the SATs, but would have been awful if they had required spelling, grammar or were fill in the blank versus multiple choice. Should I have a leg up over everyone because I am good at what it tested? I chose not to submit SAT 2’s for writing for that reason (timed essay writing for an hour in pen was a truly awful experience).
> Should I have a leg up over everyone because I am good at what it tested?
Yes, that’s a feature not a bug. The SAT doesn’t test randomly. It is designed to test for specific subjects and knowledge in those subjects.
I’ve SAT is not fun but I think it’s purpose is to fairly test all takers and rank them to assist with allocating educational resources.
It’s such an odd question to ask “should I get a leg up because I got an A in chemistry and someone else got a C?” There are many reasons that make trades hard to get. But the idea is to compensate for them as best as possible and not dwell on the fact that any merit system will not be completely fair.
I think the point might have been, you can be excellent at chemistryy, a real value to society with your ingenuity and rigor, and be no good at all at writing about chemistry.
A test like that would be fair if it were testing for journalists.
Maybe every job needs at least a little bit of rounded basic skills like that, and so it's fair for the test to include some the same way. In that case I see no problem there either.
But I don't know how out of balance the commenter is talking about. Was the test they are thinking of totally wrong or did it just include the appropriate portion of basic rounded literacy/competency, and if they sucked at it, then that was exactly the job the test is there to do is to guage those weaknesses?
I think we can all agree there is no such thing as a perfect test, but at the end of the day we need some sort of objective metrics if we want a merit-based educational system.
"Poor test taker", without fail, is a bs excuse for people who are lesser academically talented but cannot bear to admit it. With a couple of exceptions that I list at the end.
Doing well on these tests is absolutely as important as all of the other ways that these candidates are amazing.
It is as irrational to highlight amazing performance in other areas while discounting sub-par performance in standardized testing. Just as much as it would be the inverse.
These tests lend insight into, and serve to balance, the "amazing" or "underperforming" metrics in these other areas that may be in fact be more a measure of the relative quality or relative competition within these other areas.
In my opinion, the only two factors that are likely to truly affect test scores beyond innate / developed talent are: time management and the timeline of natural cognitive development.
If time management is an issue, then it will be an issue in college as well. If it is an issue because of uncontrollable factors, then the student should seek help to have other arrangements made that will enable them to eventually do well on the test.
Some people truly don't cognitively bloom until their early to mid twenties. One indication of this might be signs of talent with underperforming grades. Other strategies are more appropriate than having them flounder at an elite University at eighteen years old.
And the author also tries to correlate SATs with the Armed Forces aptitude tests, the latter which weeds out those at the far bottom end of aptitude versus making hitting a high bar a requirement for entry. Once in, recruits are judged by other means. And while what he says is true about how poorly those low scoring recruits faired, a big reason they died at a higher rate was that they were assigned to infantry at a higher rate, so were more often put in harms way.
Finally, why do we assume the SATs are fair? I was fairly good at the SATs, but would have been awful if they had required spelling, grammar or were fill in the blank versus multiple choice. Should I have a leg up over everyone because I am good at what it tested? I chose not to submit SAT 2’s for writing for that reason (timed essay writing for an hour in pen was a truly awful experience).