[lammalamma25]

Ignoring the debate about its usefulness, I have a really hard time with the line of thinking that minority/disadvantaged populations do poorly on the test therefore it is discriminatory.

Everyone takes the same test. Preparing for it more (prep classes etc) will make you do better. That is true, but what does a non discriminatory measure look like then? Unless it has exactly proportional results then it can be called discriminatory. What sort of test/measure can you create that will make having resources to prepare for it more than someone else not matter? Would that even be a good measure?

[haihaibye]

If groups perform differently on tests vs grades, different groups will lose or gain depending on the relative weightings between the two.

The best thing about having 2 measures that don't agree is you can pick which one you want to be the true source, and which one is terrible and wrong. Then you can write a story that fits your desired narrative.

If disadvantaged minorities did better on tests vs grades, do you have any doubt we wouldn't have a scandal about teacher's highly subjective racist marking?

[trhway]

>What sort of test/measure can you create that will make having resources to prepare for it more than someone else not matter?

because on that dependence on resources the SAT/ACT results statistics is also an index for discrimination like DJIA/NASDAQ is an index for economy. And right now the index is shamefully low. So, like in that joke, there are 2 ways to fix the situation - a "fantasy" way of successfully fighting discrimination and making sure that everybody has sufficient resources, etc. and a "realistically practical" way of just dropping the index. Looks like the society is choosing the realistically practical way.

[lordgrenville]

One suggestion I like is to totally change the test format every year. This would basically invalidate test prep and put everyone on the same footing.

[panda88888]

This would give the wealthy even more advantage because they have the time and resources to throw at the test compared to the poor.

The test changes every year? No problem, just prep for the meta test like how people prep for the FAANG interviews. Multiple formats? No problem, just spend more time preparing for each format. Changing topics? No problem, just cover as many topics as necessary.

I think the key is to see that the poor, by definition, have much less time and money to tackle the problem. Therefore, to have a level playing field we should design the test such that prep may help, but there is a ceiling to it, and I think the SAT is somewhat decent in this respect.

The optimal test strategy can be covered in one afternoon. The format is well known and cheap study guides/sample tests are available pretty much everywhere. If the test changes every year, imagine how much more difficult it would be for a poor student to prep for it.

Edit: typo

[danieltillett]

If is it just resources how do the poor from certain cultures manage to do well on the standardised tests while other cultures with upper middle class incomes underperform? The problem is a lot more complex than just money.

[panda88888]

Agree with you that resources is just one factor and probably not the dominating factor. I am arguing from the point of all things being equal, a test that doesn’t change from year to year requires less time and resources to prep for compared to a test that does change year to year. And for a poor student, the former is probably more equitable than the latter.

As for standardized test scores and ethnicity/culture, that is a sensitive and contentious topic that I prefer not get into.

[lammalamma25]

I've definitely like that as a thought experiment. Whether these tests assess your capabilities is already questionable. I wonder if there would be any objective way to measure outcomes if the tests were entirely different from one year to the next.