[corpMaverick]

IMHO. It is futile to level the field with the wealthy. They will always have the better opportunities, education, connections, etc. They will find a way.

But we should keep trying to give more opportunities to the less fortunate. Better education, remedial classes, free school lunches, child credits, etc. We do that by asking the wealthy to contribute more. Not by taking away their advantages.(e.g. Admission tests)

[Aurornis]

> Not by taking away their advantages.(e.g. Admission tests)

Admissions tests are actually not as big of a driver for the academic advantage of the wealthy. Especially at flagship institutions a lot of it is simply traced back to legacy admissions, athletics, and extra-curricular activities. Those latter two are more gamed by the wealthy than anything.

Removing admission tests and focusing only on the application is actually a huge boon to wealthy families who want to get their children into the best universities because it removes the hard part (having to learn enough to do well in exams) and replaces it with things that are easy to game, like writing essays and getting a track record of doing extra-curriculars.

Standardized tests actually make it easier for lower income families to compete for spots for academically advanced children because they’re measuring academic advancement. Even if it’s not a perfect measure, it’s way better than substituting non-academic things that are so easily gamed by the wealthy.

[insane_dreamer]

I sort of agree, but in my experience, wealthy parents have the money for extra classes, tutoring, SAT/ACT prep, etc., which enable their kid to get a high SAT score. These are resources which the disadvantaged don't have. So while an "average" wealthy kid might score 780 with all the help afforded to them, it would take a truly exceptional poor kid to score 780 since they're essentially bootstrapping from natural talent alone.

So whether you include SAT scores in admissions or not, it's still heavily skewed.

Also, the problem with SAT scores is that you end up studying to the test. (This is why Chinese applicants do so well on college entrance exams - they spent most of their high school studying for the specific range/type of questions they will be asked on the test.)

[xphos]

I never thought about the ease at which you can game non-academic aspects. I agree that testing is probabamtic because a good tutor can boost peoples performance signficantly but there feels like a limit to actually just learning the material. Useful evalation metrics of people are notoriously difficult