[ecshafer]

SAT And ACT and other standardized tests are the single best thing for giving poor students a leg up against rich students. We should be putting more emphasis on those tests. A poor but smart student can study for a test and do well on it, while they can not have continuous tutoring throughout school, paid grad students to do or proofread their homework, or extracurriculars that cost more than their parents pretax income.

Your business is selling an advantage to the rich students coupled with increasing student stress throughout school. Your "holistic" view can't account for "students grades are slipping because they were sleeping in their friends basement after their parent killed another parent" or "students grades are slipping because they are working 40 hours a week, illegally, at 14", but it will holistically show "student got a B+ so their dad who makes $500k a year hired a tutor for 10 hours a week".

[whynotminot]

This is what I don't understand about the movement that wants the SAT/ACT removed for college admissions, or claim that it's biased.

Sure, it's biased. Everything is. But it's biased in an open, auditable way that students of any background can prepare for. The rich will always have an advantage of course, but this is one of those areas where grit and determination can actually close the gap considerably.

Remove that, and a benchmark that anyone can understand and prepare for is just going to be replaced by something more opaque. You think a standardized test is biased? Do you think the application committee at most universities is going to be unbiased when they have nothing to go off but a student's essay and zip code?

It's incongruous to me that the same people who I think have a deep understanding of unconscious bias also seem to be the same ones wanting the standardized tests gone. I don't think it's going to help the people they think it will.

[ecshafer]

I absolutely agree. I grew up in a single parent household in poverty. But I was able to beat people on the SAT who grew up in extremely wealthy families. I have met plenty of people that graduated from highschool with a great gpa and went to good schools solely because of their family, and I have known dozens of people that I know are pretty sharp who didn't get to school because of family circumstances.

Anything that seeks to further widen the rich / poor gap like this is in my mind, completely unethical.

[meroes]

It’s still paying in time for a poor person. The wealthy hire an SAT tutor for a hundred+ an hour to bump their kid’s scores up by a third for maybe 20 hours of work. The poor student will spend much more time. It’s like many things where the poor pay in time rather than money.

[mksreddy]

My kids wrote SAT. The only resource used was Khan Academy and previous test papers made available by college board.

You really don’t need any more resources for SAT.

[blharr]

Your situation is not the same for everyone, though. It should instead be more carefully worded, "[We didn't] need any more resources for SAT." Imagine the more extreme case of a student who took it first try and got a perfect score. You wouldn't necessarily expect everyone else to be able to do the same.

Being on this site, you're probably someone who values education. And you probably raised your kids to be capable. Or maybe they just lucked out and got the correct weights to succeed in that particular scenario, but you can't assume that the situation for everyone is the same as you!

Many people simply can't learn by just doing practice tests and watching videos. If it were so easy, then we wouldn't need teachers or schools in general. Mentorship and guidance are important, and it's the reason why so many people want to get into universities in the first place.

Essentially, yes you can do without, but having it helps. Overall, that would create a disparity that favors more wealthy people.

[slily]

Poor people's parents don't have the money to bring them to vacations, enlist a violin teacher or drive them to baseball on the weekends, so clearly they have more time to allocate to studying and thus are advantaged. Conclusion: do away with meritocracy and just exclude poor people altogether. Did I get the "logic" right? Of course put this way it can't be valid because that wouldn't support the American Neomarxist delusion, sorry I meant worldview.

[blharr]

I really don't get how the context follows through on your point here. Music, sports, and travel all have been shown to increase your mental health and thinking capabilities.

All I get is that if you start from an extremely unfounded point you'll get to the wrong solution. But that doesn't say anything about the points people are making here