<p>I mean, in general. CC people talk about, say, 2000. Then you learn it’s 600/600 and an 800W. Or otherwise lopsided. Btw, those WP charts sure make it seem, at first glance, that there isn’t much difference. For our purposes, we mostly discuss a top tier of colleges and kids who may be qualified for those. Not the great bulk, which includes kids with little or no college intentions or who may be satisfied and productive with other tiers. </p>
<p>lookingforward, I agree that it would be interesting to have different data: for example, take only the subset of students who score above 700 (say) or 650, and look at the correlation with parental income.</p>
<p>My personal expectation is that after a certain point, average SAT scores will actually fall off with parental income. Are there data of the type that would be relevant?</p>
<p>Students with little or no college intention may take the ACT, because some states require it for all high school students. I don’t know of a state that requires the SAT of all students, but perhaps there are some?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but is this bias or is this disparate impact?</p>
<p>Things which bother me about Pinker’s article. He writes:
</p>
<p>The people followed by the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth are not a random sample. Is it intelligence, or is it tiger parenting? You’d have to compare the subjects to similar youth whose parents did not sign them up to take the SAT before the age of 13. I presume parents invested enough in their children’s academic career to agree to participate in academic talent searches would be likely to invest in music lessons, dance lessons, cultural experiences, and to have the means to allow their children to pursue a doctorate, or spend time on poorly paid pasttimes. </p>
<p>It would be really interesting to study the (now grown) children whose parents declined to allow them to participate in the talent search, as well as the children who just missed the 3% cutoff on the school-administered test.</p>
<p>He writes:
</p>
<p>The graduate students are training to become professors. Whether or not a professor can carry a tune or catch a ball is not germane to their intellectual pursuits, which are supposed to absorb their time. No one is suggesting smart people are dweebs. Harvard College wants graduates who leave the classroom, as well as those who remain in the classroom. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That isn’t intelligence–that’s conscientiousness, a different trait. Many Harvard students may have proven they have plenty of aptitude for academics. Those who don’t plan to become professors are preparing to be successful in other fields. It would be interesting to look again at the adult outcomes of the alumni who were athletes, singers, debaters, as well as those who took home the top academic honors. (For all I know they do.) I don’t think the very smartest will come out as the most successful. </p>
<p>How would you identify the “most successful,” Periwinkle? What counts as “success” in your view?</p>
<p>What counts as successful for a Harvard graduate? If you’ve read The Chosen by Karabel, I suppose the standards used by Dean Bender in his informal study of leading alums in the late '50s, such as leadership in politics, business, media, and academia, would still apply today. Today, I suppose one would have to add leadership in the nonprofit sector.</p>
<p>None of that will be obvious when observing 18 year olds, nor can it be judged upon graduation. Harvard does seem to do a very good job choosing people who will be eminent one day.</p>
<p>Pinker’s arguments are similar to that of the scholar-scientists opposing Bender at the time. Plus ca change…</p>
<p>(My personal standards for success are easier to meet, but not of interest in the discussion.)</p>
<p>Wow, reading through this thread makes me very sad and angry at the same time.</p>
<p>Completely disregarding the topic, about whether the test scores should be used or not, the comments here are extremely disturbing. </p>
<p>I see people here saying that the poor cannot cut it in an Ivy League simply because they were raised poor, I see people say their rich children are entitled to ask whether or not they can break the rules, I see people say that the rich are rich because they are all intelligent, and their children are intelligent because of that, while the poor are the opposite.</p>
<p>The comments here really disturb me. I had always thought these classist views were largely exaggerated, and that while people might be very greedy and selfish, rarely did they believe they were better than 80% of the country.</p>
<p>This thread really leaves me without words.</p>
<p>Harvard is throwing full support behind the new 2016 SAT. Apparently they prefer a test that is more relevant to class based academics.</p>
<p><a href=“A change for the better — Harvard Gazette”>http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/a-change-for-the-better/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is interesting to read the entire interview. I find each answer about the review process emimently quotable but it is best to read this interview in its entirety to get a good gist of why the Dean thinks high standardized scores end up playing a smaller role in the end.</p>
<p>"see people here saying that the poor cannot cut it in an Ivy League simply because they were raised poor, I see people say their rich children are entitled to ask whether or not they can break the rules"d</p>
<p>Only Isabella said the first thing, and her posts were removed for trolling.</p>
<p>I said the second thing, but you’ve misinterpreted. I didn’t say “because my children are rich, they’re entitled to break the rules in a way poor people aren’t entitled.” I said that an upper middle class norm is the <strong>confidence</strong>to ask, nicely and politely, whether it’s possible to make an exception - “you never know unless you ask, the worst that happens is that they say no.” And that my kids, as UMC kids, have observed that, whereas a poorer kid might not have absorbed that tendency. I didn’t say that a poorer kid, by virtue of being poorer, shouldn’t be “allowed” to ask the very same thing. He just might not know he can. </p>
<p>And when I say “break the rules,” I’m not talking about anything egregious. I’m not talking about “well, how come I can’t have liquor in my room when I’m underage.” I’m not talking about “how come I can’t turn my paper in a week late.” I’m not talking about behavior standards. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The College Board is hardly a disinterested observer. They have a vested interest in giving their clients what they want. I much rather listen to people like Kuncel that I posted earlier, who are recognized as authorities in their field. I would also put more credence on the meta-analyses then single studies because of range restriction and criterion reliability issues. Kuncel clearly showed that SES is not the issue and he has the data to back it up.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting interview with behavioural geneticist Robert Plomin. He said basically what Kuncel and Pinker are saying or implying. I find his comments on educators and tiger parents particularly pertinent. The reporter’s emotional roller-coaster is absolutely delicious.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/”>http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/</a></p>
<p>I think there are a lot of Kaminites on CC.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that Oxford and Cambridge admit on purely academic grounds, and they don’t seem to have trouble enrolling ‘future leaders’.</p>
<p>Re Periwinkle, #165. If you include leadership in academia in the definition of “most successful,” then I think in many cases the “very smartest” will in fact come out as the “most successful.”</p>
<p>A case in point: Martin Karplus, 1950 graduate of Harvard College, described by Linus Pauling as his “most brilliant student” (at least according to wikipedia):
<a href=“Martin Karplus - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Karplus</a>
Pauling won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954, and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962–he had plenty of really, really smart students.
Going back to Martin Karplus: Karplus taught at the University of Illinois, and then at Columbia, before being recruited back by Harvard in 1967. He has been a Professor there since then.
Karplus shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry last year (2013).</p>
<p>I think it is interesting to compare Martin Karplus and Bill Gates (Harvard drop-out, technically speaking), in terms of “success.” I greatly admire the work that Bill Gates is doing through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He is wealthy “beyond the dreams of avarice.” Most people would say that Bill Gates is the more successful, I would guess; my own opinion is divided.</p>
<p>But on the issue of very smartest: Bill Gates would have been admitted to Harvard under a standardized-scores only scenario: He had a 1590/1600 on the SAT, back when that was harder to score (in terms of the number of students who managed it, at least). The wikipedia entry on Gates includes comments on his solution of a difficult problem in combinatorics, while he was a Harvard undergrad:</p>
<p>“In his sophomore year, Gates devised an algorithm for pancake sorting as a solution to one of a series of unsolved problems[34] presented in a combinatorics class by Harry Lewis, one of his professors. Gates’s solution held the record as the fastest version for over thirty years;[34][35] its successor is faster by only one percent.[34] His solution was later formalized in a published paper in collaboration with Harvard computer scientist Christos Papadimitriou.[36]”</p>
<p>Gates did quite well on the Putnam Mathematics Exam, a university-level mathematics competition:
<a href=“William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lowell_Putnam_Mathematical_Competition</a></p>
<p>On the Putnam exam, Gates was apparently out-scored by Steven Ballmer, another extremely smart Harvard undergrad:
<a href=“Preaching From the Ballmer Pulpit - The New York Times”>Preaching From the Ballmer Pulpit - The New York Times;
Ballmer later became the CEO of Microsoft (after Gates). </p>
<p>"Re Periwinkle, #165. If you include leadership in academia in the definition of “most successful,” then I think in many cases the “very smartest” will in fact come out as the “most successfu”</p>
<p>I just hired an academic with a PhD from U Chicago. And she’s very, very smart, and has added great insights to her projects, and I value her contribution. But she’s missing some real world smarts. </p>
<p>I don’t know if you guys over there in academia know how pedantic you come across at times. And this is a perfect example. Harvard et al clearly value definitions of success beyond “very smartest”. And that’s what they carry out in their admissions criteria. Some of you in academia are just, frankly, too full of yourselves and too captivated by your own intelligence and too one-dimensional and self-referential not to get that there are many definitions of success, not all of which are measured by standardized testing. You are the standard-bearers for academia, but you’re not the standard-bearers of life success. </p>
<p>“I think it is interesting to compare Martin Karplus and Bill Gates (Harvard drop-out, technically speaking), in terms of “success.” I greatly admire the work that Bill Gates is doing through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He is wealthy “beyond the dreams of avarice.” Most people would say that Bill Gates is the more successful, I would guess; my own opinion is divided.”</p>
<p>It needn’t be a contest. See, this is exactly what I mean by pedantic. Karakuls was successful in ways a, b and c because he had qualities d, e and f. Gates was successful in ways g, h and I due to qualities j, k and l. Harvard et al wants some of each type of quality and some of each type of success. They don’t need to rank one type over the other. They want both, and they are in the position of being able to pick and choose for both. Done and done. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Citing Bill Gates’ success on the SAT may actually reinforce the points of those who argue that high SAT scores are mainly/highly correlated with coming from high income families and not necessarily that of academic merit.* Bill Gates’ father was a prominent attorney in the Seattle area, his mother was on the board of some corporations, and he mentioned in several interviews his father was a full pay parent. </p>
<p>Steve Ballmer also came from an affluent family background. </p>
<p>As such, citing their examples only strengthens arguments that going to standardized test-only admissions privileges the well-off, not necessarily the most academically meritorious precisely because it disadvantages students from lower SES families…whether rightly or wrongly. </p>
<ul>
<li>This is an argument commonly advanced in some corners of academia…especially Ed schools, politicians, and political activists.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>@QuantMech, you yourself have pointed out how few openings there are in your field, IIRC. Harvard graduates many future professors. If it’s hard to secure a tenure-track position, how would choosing to prepare more would-be professors advance the world? </p>
<p>The supply of people interested in becoming professors, who are also smart enough to make it through, is limited. I have no fear that someone like Martin Karplus will find an undergraduate college to nurture his gifts. Drawing more to Harvard would perhaps change Harvard’s undergraduate “feel,” and ruin the curve in numerous courses. Would it increase the supply of leading professors? Not necessarily, as I presume the extra genius students would have been otherwise enrolled at other institutions.</p>
<p>The demand for leading professors is limited by real-world considerations. There are only so many universities. There are only so many prizes awarded each year. </p>
<p>Whereas the great outside world has much to offer.</p>
<p>I see a lot of this thread as thumb-sucking that neither Harvard nor the outside world care as passionately about what you care about as you do. Maybe the professors on this thread don’t feel as bowed-to by society as they’d like to be, and they want validation by Almighty Harvard that what they do is important?</p>
<p>Tear into whether the SAT/ACT are true measures of potential. Because I think many posters are asserting that. Imo, they are skills based and, as many knowledgeable posters tell us those skills can be learned. What sort of person has the drive to learn them? Or perfect them, to go from, say, a 2000 to a 2300? Well, of course, the same sorts of kids who will be driven to get A’s, not B’s, in college. Good. But does that mean he’s smart or super smart or some special snowflake? No. The final proof is in more than doing well on a test or even grades. Again, you’re trying to plug human nature and potential, creativity, openness to new concepts, etc- and value- into a number. You’re trying to make it hierarchical. You’re trying to say, the 2390 kid is realllly better than the 2200 kid. Or the 1900. In that respect, I find it empty.</p>
<p>The std tests are not perfect, either as a test or as a predictor of the life path. They are just the tests we have. If there were some other metric, we could be fussing over that, looking for deep interpretations in whatever hard measurements we happen to have. I don’t care if the number predicts gpa (at any point in college.) </p>
<p>Life isn’t measured in numbers or gpa. Nor is one’s contribution, the impact they have on others, who then go on to their own impacts. So what if someone appears in Newsweek? It’s superficial. In some way, I want to say you’re worshiping false idols.</p>
<p>So, you get kid A who got the 2390 and kid B who got a 2000. What does that tell you? Nothing. Maybe A did work hard for it, maybe he got lucky. The minute you say, “Well, let’s open the app and see what more- how does he think, what did he pursue, does he take on challenges we feel are worthy and seem to reflect resilience, does he seem to have effect,” etc- then you are smack in holistic is and does.</p>
<p>I don’t “like” the concept of athletic admits. Not enough to avoid sending one of my kids to a place that has athletic admits, but I admit, I privilege athletic competency less than (say) math or music or artistic competency. But you know why? It’s likely because I’m not very good at things athletic! So it’s easy for me to say “well, those are stupid things to privilege,” but let’s get real - it’s partly because it helps me feel better about my own shortcomings to pretend that the things I’m not good at aren’t really all that important. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that there are things about athletic performance and competency that are actually quite laudable and I’ve had to re-think my own thinking on the subject. </p>
<p>I guess it makes me suspicious if the same mentality is applying here. “I don’t know how to demonstrate creativity, leadership qualities, all of those other things - but I CAN demonstrate academics-as-measured-by-standardized-testing - so, I’ll just argue that academics as measured by standardized testing MUST be better and more important, because then I can feel better about my own shortcomings in those other areas.”</p>
<p>“Life isn’t measured in numbers or gpa. Nor is one’s contribution, the impact they have on others, who then go on to their own impacts.”</p>
<p>This is why I asked the question about neurotypicality in earlier threads. I think the above is a neurotypical way of thinking about life, and not getting it makes me wonder if the person is not neurotypical. </p>