What will an IU diploma be worth in 10 years?

[jamil]

No, it really isn't. SAT score correlates, but it doesn't correlate particularly well. It's fine if schools want to keep using it, but I don't think it's actually that helpful, and I don't think it's a great loss if it goes away.

As you hinted at earlier, effort is the real key to success, and that is true in much more than just school.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/presto...mpletion-high-school-gpa-beats-sat-score/amp/

That Graph says the same thing I said, both are more accurate together. And at the tails of the bell curve, they tend to be more predictive, which is a good reason the most competitive schools still use standardized test scores. You got a 4.0 in high school, but only got a 31 on your ACT, you’re not going to have as good a chance to get into the most competitive schools. Or, you got a 3.87 because you had one ******* teacher, but you scored a 36 on your ACT, that means more than your 3.87.

I still think you’re diluting the actual value of standardized testing. I do think that it would be fairer though to flatten out the opportunities. It would be better, fairer, if all students had the same opportunity for test prep. Students from wealthier families can afford the most expensive test prep bootcamps. But that same inequality is also baked into GPA. A 4.0 at an affluent school where academic standards are very high, is not the same as a 4.0 at some rotting school in a poor area, where standards are very low.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

The SAT score was still going to be the same, even under the proposed "adversity score". That would have been a supplemental number that, like the SAT score itself, the given college could decide how much it mattered. However that was dropped before being implemented. This has since been changed to "landscape":

https://professionals.collegeboard.org/landscape



So, no SAT scores are not 'racially adjusted' despite what the outrage porn outlets are telling you.

Interesting. I didn’t know that it was ever dropped. I only heard about it through the 2009 Princeton study, which Ben Shapiro references in a speech. If you google 2009 Princeton sat study it comes up on Princeton.edu but when clicking the link it says url no longer available.

Ny times was the only info I could find, which was from 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions.html

I was under the impression the scores were adjusted, but according to the article they were adjusting the standards not the scores. Even if it did get dropped, the fact it was ever even considered is disgusting. If I were Hispanic or black I would be offended that they think I’m not capable of testing the same as a white person or Asian. I’ve met some blacks that are much much smarter than me. Admittedly, Kut is much more intelligent than I am. Don’t tell him tho. I don’t think skin color has much to do with intellect.

From what i understand it was proposed because of different cultures situations. Basically a black in the ghetto will have a harder time scoring the same as a Asian in an upper class town. What they fail to acknowledge is that Asians live in the ghetto. Whites Hispanics Jews etc. all live in the ghetto.

I guess it’s a moot point if it were dropped tho lol. I just wanted to rant

 

[CampingJosh]

I still think you’re diluting the actual value of standardized testing. I do think that it would be fairer though to flatten out the opportunities. It would be better, fairer, if all students had the same opportunity for test prep. Students from wealthier families can afford the most expensive test prep bootcamps. But that same inequality is also baked into GPA. A 4.0 at an affluent school where academic standards are very high, is not the same as a 4.0 at some rotting school in a poor area, where standards are very low.

You've pointed out some significant problems. There might be a better solution than to simply keep using SAT scores. Perhaps a comparison of the student's GPA to the individual high school's mean and median GPA. Perhaps school-wide test scores can calibrate GPA. Maybe a different kind of test can be a more accurate predictor.

In any case, I'm not upset about a college dropping the requirement that all applicants purchase a service from a single company. They might have something better already figured out.

 

[CHCRandy]

I understand.

Should I assume you do not have a degree?

Yes, no degree here. I wanted to go to school to be a CO...then I found out back then that like 1% of white males make it to become a CO in Indiana. I decided not to try. I was making more trapping animals in 1986 than my teachers made teaching us(true). I quit school my senior year, because it was interfering with hunting season. My principal came to my home and persuaded me to come back for 4 months and graduate....so I did. I did it for him and my dad though, not myself.

I thought back then I would make a living deer hunting, coon hunting, fox and coyote hunting, trapping, digging ginseng and fishing.....and working when I wanted on the golf course. My mother had a degree from Butler and my dad was an 8th grade drop out from Virginia....he and his uneducated friends always done well for themselves. I figured at that point I would go to work instead of school. I never was a good student. I could read something and remember it and make good grades, but I never liked to study and honestly that diploma never helped me in life. My older sister went to Hanover, I watched as my dad spent a fortune to send her there, just so she could party and get kicked out. I decided back then I would probably never do that and I was a blue collar boy, I couldn't be a desk jockey.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I scored very well on the SAT back in 1977 (1360). Went to General Motors Institute (now Kettering University), which at the time had as good a reputation in the engineering world as MIT (and I could have gone to MIT). Out of 30,000 applications per year, they only accepted 3000 students. Flunked out after my first year (slacking off and too much partying). I skated through high school. Stuff just came easy for me, even in advanced courses. When I got to GMI, I had a rude awakening.

When I got to GMI, there were people like me, that barely cracked a book in high school, and there were people that worked their asses off in high school to do well. Guess which ones were still there after the first year? I think an individual's academic work ethic has much more to do with success in college than the SAT scores.

 

[PistolBob]

What the bachelor's degree really communicates is not competence or proficiency. What it communicates is that the person has the grit to stick to a project for four years. And it doesn't always say much more than that.

In a particularly tight labor market (such as we are currently experiencing), the ability to stay on task for a relatively long period of time is itself a valuable skillset. Employee turnover sucks, and good employers are willing to pay extra (even above market rate) to avoid that problem.

It's very difficult to get a Bachelors finished in 4 years nowadays....it's been stretched out to five at a lot of big name schools...add an extra year of fees.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I scored very well on the SAT back in 1977 (1360). Went to General Motors Institute (now Kettering University), which at the time had as good a reputation in the engineering world as MIT (and I could have gone to MIT). Out of 30,000 applications per year, they only accepted 3000 students. Flunked out after my first year (slacking off and too much partying). I skated through high school. Stuff just came easy for me, even in advanced courses. When I got to GMI, I had a rude awakening.

When I got to GMI, there were people like me, that barely cracked a book in high school, and there were people that worked their asses off in high school to do well. Guess which ones were still there after the first year? I think an individual's academic work ethic has much more to do with success in college than the SAT scores.

Bingo.

That was why I didn’t go to college. I knew I was done with school when i graduated, my mom offered to pay for my schooling completely but if I dropped out I had to pay her back. I knew I wouldn’t take it seriously and would have focused on partying and college girls. I got a job in a machine shop 2 weeks after graduation and rented a house 2 months later. Now I’m a toolmaker and bought my house when I was 21. Had I went to college I would owe student loans and probably in a job I hated that wasn’t even relative to my degree. I feel it was the right choice for me. Other people college is probably the right choice for them. School isn’t my cup of tea, best part was the endless amount of girls to choose from.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Bingo.

That was why I didn’t go to college. I knew I was done with school when i graduated, my mom offered to pay for my schooling completely but if I dropped out I had to pay her back. I knew I wouldn’t take it seriously and would have focused on partying and college girls. I got a job in a machine shop 2 weeks after graduation and rented a house 2 months later. Now I’m a toolmaker and bought my house when I was 21. Had I went to college I would owe student loans and probably in a job I hated that wasn’t even relative to my degree. I feel it was the right choice for me. Other people college is probably the right choice for them. School isn’t my cup of tea, best part was the endless amount of girls to choose from.

Yes to the focusing on partying and college girls. Not so much on the endless amount of girls to choose from. I wasn't that good looking, so my choices were limited.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Yes to the focusing on partying and college girls. Not so much on the endless amount of girls to choose from. I wasn't that good looking, so my choices were limited.

Lmao. I wasn’t either but I got lucky, I was in 8th grade dating a sophomore. For some reason that really helped get more girls. I went to senior prom as a freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior lol. Playing sports also helped.

Dang i miss being a kid.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

After working as a shoe salesman, shoe store assistant manager for a couple of years, then working as a cook/manager at various restaurants for about 15 years (the last 10 at TGIFridays from '85 to '95 when it was really hopping), I finally got an A.S. in Computer Technology. Got my first "real job" at BMG Music Club (the people that used to send you junk mails offering 10 CD's for a penny if you buy one at full price) as a programmer (COBOL). My main job was warehouse support so they were my "client".

I remember being in a meeting with a bunch of "higher ups" when our warehouse manager (a vice president) made a statement that "we should hire people with restaurant experience more often!" The reason was that I attacked things with the sense of urgency that you develop in the restaurant business when you're trying to get your customers' product (their meals) to them as quickly and correctly as you possibly could. I had a great rapport with them, so if they told me they needed something, I was on it.

Now I work for the gubmint and things move at a much slower pace. But I still get my product to my customers ASAP, always.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Lmao. I wasn’t either but I got lucky, I was in 8th grade dating a sophomore. For some reason that really helped get more girls. I went to senior prom as a freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior lol. Playing sports also helped.

Dang i miss being a kid.

Yes! When I dated, I did seem to somehow manage to date "above my grade" but by that I mean they were better looking than I deserved. LOL I was in sports, but it was gymnastics. The obvious bonus to that was that we shared the same practice area as the girl gymnasts.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

That’s funny you say that, my friend from high school was a chef since he graduated. He worked at scholars inn, and some fancy golf course idk the name of. Nice places. He recently quit, said he’s getting older and the hours are killing him. He got a job with the water company laying pipes and repairing them. He’s been there for a year and already has a crew working under him. Like you said, everything is urgent and he makes sure it’s done right the first time. Maybe we need to hire a couple chefs

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Yes! When I dated, I did seem to somehow manage to date "above my grade" but by that I mean they were better looking than I deserved. LOL I was in sports, but it was gymnastics. The obvious bonus to that was that we shared the same practice area as the girl gymnasts.

LOL we didn’t have gymnastics at our school. I played basketball and baseball. Baseball can be boring to watch but man I loved playing it. By the time you work enough to start sweating it’s time to sit down and take a nice 10 minute break lol

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I was under the impression the scores were adjusted, but according to the article they were adjusting the standards not the scores. Even if it did get dropped, the fact it was ever even considered is disgusting. If I were Hispanic or black I would be offended that they think I’m not capable of testing the same as a white person or Asian.

I get that argument. Basically the argument is you take "the best" based on whatever metric you have decided matters. The counter-argument is you set a threshold and then take a selection of everyone who meets that threshold. I actually see both sides on this one. Who's more likely to solve a given problem, a group of 150 IQ folks who all have the same background or a group of 120 IQ folks who approach a given problem from multiple viewpoints? I don't know, but that's basically what the argument boils down to.

There's also the fact that you simply have a better chance at being better at math if you're born into certain Asian language cultures. It's not that they are smarter, it's how their language works with numbers. In short, the names of their numbers are shorter and allow more numbers to be held in working memory at one time. Their numbers are named more sensibly. There is no equivalent of "eleven" that doesn't fit any pattern for any other number. Eleven is instead stated as "ten and one". Which is easier to add in your head, fourteen and eleven or one and four and one and one? The second has already broken the problem down for you and requires less mental energy to complete. This, in short, means that children learn numbers and math at a younger age and can do math faster, essentially giving them a head start. It would be like pitting US fifth graders against US second graders in a math contest. That's not the sole reason, of course, but that simple advantage can make a big difference and is beyond a person's control. ("Outliers" covers this and many other cultural factors for those who are interested.)

So how much do you reward people for advantages beyond their control that might help them test better but don't actually indicate "smarter" or account for many other factors of who will succeed?

Again, I don't know. I think it's a more complicated question then it seems at first glance, though.

 

[ljk]

Few years back my niece got a perfect 2400 SAT score in junior year, when she applied Stanford, she was pretty much told to "blip off" because she's half Caucasian half Chinese, Stanford already had enough whites, Chinese and Indians(dot).

 

[jamil]

I get that argument. Basically the argument is you take "the best" based on whatever metric you have decided matters. The counter-argument is you set a threshold and then take a selection of everyone who meets that threshold. I actually see both sides on this one. Who's more likely to solve a given problem, a group of 150 IQ folks who all have the same background or a group of 120 IQ folks who approach a given problem from multiple viewpoints? I don't know, but that's basically what the argument boils down to.

There's also the fact that you simply have a better chance at being better at math if you're born into certain Asian language cultures. It's not that they are smarter, it's how their language works with numbers. In short, the names of their numbers are shorter and allow more numbers to be held in working memory at one time. Their numbers are named more sensibly. There is no equivalent of "eleven" that doesn't fit any pattern for any other number. Eleven is instead stated as "ten and one". Which is easier to add in your head, fourteen and eleven or one and four and one and one? The second has already broken the problem down for you and requires less mental energy to complete. This, in short, means that children learn numbers and math at a younger age and can do math faster, essentially giving them a head start. It would be like pitting US fifth graders against US second graders in a math contest. That's not the sole reason, of course, but that simple advantage can make a big difference and is beyond a person's control. ("Outliers" covers this and many other cultural factors for those who are interested.)

So how much do you reward people for advantages beyond their control that might help them test better but don't actually indicate "smarter" or account for many other factors of who will succeed?

Again, I don't know. I think it's a more complicated question then it seems at first glance, though.

Why can't we have diverse 150s? If IQ is evenly distributed, I don't think you can say the choice is limited to the homogeneous 150's against diverse 120's. That's not a necessary dichotomy. If IQ is evenly distributed, then there it's all the other factors that prevent the full spectrum of smart people from admissions. Likely it's that the systems of admissions, and society, privileges a homogeneous subset of smart people for admission over smart people with diverse cultures.

I don't think the solution is to reject red people because you have "enough" red people, and you want more green people and blue people, so you lower the threshold to get the 120s. And it is indeed lowering the threshold. If it were just having to wade through the stacks of perfect SAT scores to find proportional diversity, okay. That still doesn't solve the problem.

If your curriculum is designed for the 150s, the 120s simply won't keep up no matter how diverse their solutions might be. If you can't admit a diverse enough student body, that's a signal of a problem that is not solved with affirmative action. Assuming IQ is evenly distributed, why aren't the Green 150s getting admitted at proportional rates? A colorblind admission system would make the obvious answer more apparent: Achieving natural diversity by eliminating the reasons the green 150s aren't attending at proportional levels. Equalize the opportunity rather than trying to equalize the outcome. Affirmative action has been in place for many decades and it's not solved the problems yet.

Recently Asians lost their discrimination case against Harvard. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/harvard-admissions-lawsuit.html

In her decision, Judge Burroughs defended the benefits of diversity, saying it was not yet time to look beyond race in college admissions. “Diversity,” she wrote, “will foster the tolerance, acceptance and understanding that will ultimately make race conscious admissions obsolete.”
​

So, what she's saying, it's definitely discrimination. It's just the legalized variety of discrimination. This is a wet dream. It doesn't work the way she thinks it does. Looking at race is already obsolete. If it were the case that colleges would otherwise disproportionately admit Reds just because they're red, and reject Greens just because they're green, she'd have a point. The reason Reds have such a high representation in the top universities is that they outperform the Blues and Greens.

A solution that might help would be to adjust admission requirements so that it gives equal advantages to all the 150s to the extent that it can. But also society needs to fix the reasons why some 150s are not fulfilling their potential. Affirmative action will not solve that.

 

[jamil]

You've pointed out some significant problems. There might be a better solution than to simply keep using SAT scores. Perhaps a comparison of the student's GPA to the individual high school's mean and median GPA. Perhaps school-wide test scores can calibrate GPA. Maybe a different kind of test can be a more accurate predictor.

In any case, I'm not upset about a college dropping the requirement that all applicants purchase a service from a single company. They might have something better already figured out.

Some school systems weight their GPAs. If you take all AP classes through high school, your GPA is weighted higher than if you take standard classes. But there's no consistency in that across all schools. And this is where the value of a federal Department of Education would come in. If I were Grand Poobah of the United States (GPOTUS) I would gut the DoE and make it a low level department like it was before Carter got hold of it. I think it would be useful to create through the school accreditation system, a system where GPA would be appropriately weighted across all schools accredited through any of the regional accreditation associations. So there would be quality rankings of schools, which would fit in with a GPA national weighting.

And yes, some form of standardized testing would be part of that.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Why can't we have diverse 150s? If IQ is evenly distributed, I don't think you can say the choice is limited to the homogeneous 150's against diverse 120's.

If that were the case, we'd not be having the discussion and certain races wouldn't be over represented, would we? It's a multifacted issue and one that I don't think the brevity of a forum can really flesh out, which is why I mentioned the book above. In short, how we measure IQ, SAT scores, etc. does not result in an even distribution and does not equate (predict, to an extent, but not equate) to success of either the individual or group. The introduction of other criteria beyond simply an SAT score or IQ score acknowledges that.

University of Chicago, 3rd leading producer of Nobel Laureates in the US and 4th globally (Yale is 11th), has a special admissions process for rural students, including free travel to the school and free summer programs for rural high schoolers.

UChicago knows that students from rural and small-town contexts bring valuable experiences and viewpoints to a college community, from understanding the strengths and challenges of living in isolated areas to bringing a different understanding of complex political and social issues to the classroom. However, students from rural and small-town communities are often faced with unique social, economic, and cultural barriers to college admissions because of their geographic isolation.

Is that wrong? If we take two people who are in every other aspect identical and educate one in a defunct coal mining town and another in a college prep high school in a wealthy district, would we expect them to test the same? Would we declare the second smarter because they test better or would we recognize that their experience/exposure has given them a head start but both are equally capable if given the same opportunity? How do we expect to revitalize areas of the nation left behind if we don't give at least some of the population the chance to overcome that head start?

Why do we not see the same outrage porn over rural/small town kids getting extra attention? It doesn't sell as well as promoting racial division, probably.

I don't think the issue is as simple as many would make it. It's easy to write it off as just more PC nonsense, and in fairness I did at first and for quite awhile. When you look beyond the headlines and see the reasoning of the proponents of such approaches, even if you don't agree with them, it's apparent it's a more multi-faceted issue then it would appear in the sound bite culture wars version.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If that were the case, we'd not be having the discussion and certain races wouldn't be over represented, would we? It's a multifacted issue and one that I don't think the brevity of a forum can really flesh out, which is why I mentioned the book above. In short, how we measure IQ, SAT scores, etc. does not result in an even distribution and does not equate (predict, to an extent, but not equate) to success of either the individual or group. The introduction of other criteria beyond simply an SAT score or IQ score acknowledges that.

University of Chicago, 3rd leading producer of Nobel Laureates in the US and 4th globally (Yale is 11th), has a special admissions process for rural students, including free travel to the school and free summer programs for rural high schoolers.



Is that wrong? If we take two people who are in every other aspect identical and educate one in a defunct coal mining town and another in a college prep high school in a wealthy district, would we expect them to test the same? Would we declare the second smarter because they test better or would we recognize that their experience/exposure has given them a head start but both are equally capable if given the same opportunity? How do we expect to revitalize areas of the nation left behind if we don't give at least some of the population the chance to overcome that head start?

Why do we not see the same outrage porn over rural/small town kids getting extra attention? It doesn't sell as well as promoting racial division, probably.

I don't think the issue is as simple as many would make it. It's easy to write it off as just more PC nonsense, and in fairness I did at first and for quite awhile. When you look beyond the headlines and see the reasoning of the proponents of such approaches, even if you don't agree with them, it's apparent it's a more multi-faceted issue then it would appear in the sound bite culture wars version.

"UChicago knows that students from rural and small-town contexts bring valuable experiences and viewpoints"

Now if we could just get those that want to abolish the electoral college to understand this.

 

[JettaKnight]

Thanks for the explanation. I was not aware that the SATs were graded on a racial curve. If they are adjusted they lose the value of their purpose.
As you say, the SAT is not intended to be a predictor of your success in college, as people who have good scores still flunk out, but they do show whether you meet the entry level standard.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/sat-score.html


Standardized tests like the SAT / ACT were a good way to remove bias - if admissions were by a score, then you wouldn't be weeding out folks based on their race. And if one school had GPA inflation, that would be neutralized as well.

But then it got all mucked up...

So, what replaced standardized test? Inflated GPA? Race? Darts at a wall?

I never realized how many kids should not be in school. My wife has taught several of these classes over the years and she is actually teaching one now. At the end of the current class there is a 80 question test. Just for the fun of it my wife gave my 12 year old daughter the test and she missed 4 questions. . . 4. They have kids talking these classes 3, 4, 5 times because they can not pass.

It's amazing how many dumb college kids I've met on campus.