Feds charge dozens in massive college admissions scandal

[CitizenVectron]

Why does the US even have SATs? Why would anyone think that a single test taken at a single time would be a good indicator of someone's abilities or worth?

[Greatoneshere]

10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Why does the US even have SATs? Why would anyone think that a single test taken at a single time would be a good indicator of someone's abilities or worth?

 

What demonstrable metrics would you use? There has to be some method in place. Standardized testing is just one part of it. Your high school GPA (9th grade thru 12th grade) is also heavily taken into account with the college admissions process, not just your SAT. The SAT is just a very basic barometer to create a low bar every student can be demonstrably measured by. Sure, it's not perfect by any means but there's reasoning behind it is all. 

 

Additionally, you can take the SAT more than once (it's recommended to take it 3 times but no more than that). There's also AP classes you can take in high school that boost your admissions chances, and there's also SAT II's you can take which are subject specific to further prove one's aptitude, knowledge, and academic skills. 

 

Anyone pushing the narrative that all that matters is your SAT score, a single test which you take once, is not telling the whole truth. There are a number of factors used and weighted in the admissions process to get into colleges, and not all colleges even weigh the same things the same. SAT's are definitely important and weighted heavily as a basic way of sorting out applicants but your GPA, any AP classes or SAT II's you took. your letter(s) of recommendation, and your extracurricular activities, jobs, and internships also all play a role. I'd argue one's GPA/transcript is almost as weighted equally to your SAT score, the rest less so for sure. 

 

If a student can't get either good grades in school or a good SAT score (much less no AP classes and no taking of SAT II subject matter tests) means to me you probably shouldn't be going "good, traditional" colleges. Of course, these aren't the only ways a person can indicate they are smart or capable, (I think that goes without saying...) but a smart or capable person would find an angle to work within this system. Of course I'm all for always improving it too (and it definitely need improvement in many areas) but the war against standardized tests doesn't make sense. It even has essay sections for those who aren't good at getting the one right multiple choice answer.

[Kal-El814]

11 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Why does the US even have SATs? Why would anyone think that a single test taken at a single time would be a good indicator of someone's abilities or worth?

Because the true positive rate of a high SAT / ACT score predicting college performance is accurate enough to make it a low effort way of sifting the wheat from the chaff when a university is evaluating a shitload of applications.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

11 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Because the true positive rate of a high SAT / ACT score predicting college performance is accurate enough to make it a low effort way of sifting the wheat from the chaff when a university is evaluating a shitload of applications.

Yep. It's a decent indicator of some combination of a stable home life, work ethic, and intelligence, all of which are critical to success in college (and beyond, which is another item that colleges think about: how much can/will you donate after graduation?)

[CitizenVectron]

It seems the rest of the world gets by fairly well on using high school marks (plus all the other factors that all schools take into account like volunteering, etc).

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

It seems the rest of the world gets by fairly well on using high school marks (plus all the other factors that all schools take into account like volunteering, etc).

 

College entrance exams aren’t some sort of American oddity.

[Chris-]

Doesn't the UK have some incredibly arcane exam system?

[Bloodporne]

17 hours ago, Anathema- said:

 

William H. Macy is Felicity Huffman's husband and apparently just as embroiled in the scandal as she is.

NOT LUNDEGAARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is bullshit, now I'm getting involved. 

 

He is innocent! 

 

Edit: Actually, I have no idea about anything in this topic. I don't have any secondary education and have no clue what any of this shit means but thoroughly enjoy seeing any cast member of Full House skewered. 

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, Chris- said:

Doesn't the UK have some incredibly arcane exam system?

 

They do, depending on what you consider arcane, but many countries have forms of standardized testing. And when your country has 300+ million people in it, it's more necessary rather than less. 

 

I also should have noted earlier that there are ACT's too, so you aren't even bound to doing even one kind of standardized test! Though the SAT is considered a more important, more heavily weighted exam in your favor (or against) than the ACT. 

[Greatoneshere]

17 hours ago, Anathema- said:

 

William H. Macy is Felicity Huffman's husband and apparently just as embroiled in the scandal as she is.

 

My understanding is he wasn't charged? Is he embroiled?

[CitizenVectron]

23 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

College entrance exams aren’t some sort of American oddity.

 

No, but the cult of SAT seems to be, as is the cult of standardized testing (at least for western nations).

 

I already posted this in the entertainment version of this story, but I saw a really good list of how the Canadian system (and other western systems) differ from the US system, and how that prevents many of the issues surrounding the US system:

 

• Universities are almost all publicly funded and run
• Less need for private money means less influence of alumni/donors
• Schools are more uniform in quality of education, meaning it matters far less where you went (in Canada people don't even talk about which school they went to, typically, as it doesn't matter)
• Because outside money is not needed, non-educational distractions like sports, frats, and alumni groups are diminished in importance
• Education is placed over networking, since rich and poor people all attend the same schools
• Many/most degrees are 5-year programs which include 2-4 co-op terms where you work in the industry for pay (unpaid internships are typically not allowed, with a few exceptions)
• Students admitted on high school achievement. Placement tests not required since there is less demand at individual schools and pretty much everyone who wants to go to university can get a spot, if their marks are good enough
• Frats/sororities don't really exist, which is awesome
• Publicly funded and run 2-year trade schools/polytechnics also exist for non-degree courses, such as the trades, associate degrees in many fields, etc.

As a result of this, Canada has the most post-secondary usage in the world (50% of population has attended). It's not perfect - you still need to pay tuition unless you are poor, but the tuition is basically the same at all universities, with degrees (4/5 years) costing $20,000 to $30,000 depending on the discipline. That is without government assistance or scholarships, of course. Trade schools and polytechnics are less expensive. 

 

Common attacks against the Canadian system are:

• But I love sports and the college experience, they enrich the American culture
• But Harvard is better than a Canadian school, both in education and who you meet
• Canada is small, US is big

Counters:

• The goal of education should be education. You can have sports and other non-educational system in place with private money, they don't need to be (and shouldn't be) tied to academic achievement
• Like the defense of many American systems, people say that the top 1% of quality is worth the reduction of the bottom 90% compared to other countries. Sure, if you can go to Harvard or equivalent then it's better than most universities in Canada. But otherwise it's not. Like healthcare, it's better for individuals and society to prioritize the good of all over the wants of the top 1%
• The average student body in a Canadian university is just over 15,000, which is larger than the average US college. Being a larger country actually means the US could have cheaper and better-run public universities, as the per capita costs would lower with fewer but larger campuses

 

Now obviously the US can't change the entire system even if it wanted to, simply due to the inertia of history. But there are definitely changes that could be made to improve it and increase usage. All of this combines means that people don't need to cheat or bribe to get into good schools, because it just doesn't matter which one you go to unless there is an incredibly specialized program or research being done. People just go to the closest school.

 

 

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

Because the true positive rate of a high SAT / ACT score predicting college performance is accurate enough to make it a low effort way of sifting the wheat from the chaff when a university is evaluating a shitload of applications.

Not really. It's an easy way to sort people but it doesn't make it a good assortment. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

No, but the cult of SAT seems to be, as is the cult of standardized testing (at least for western nations).

 

I feel like you invented this in your mind

6 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

Not really. It's an easy way to sort people but it doesn't make it a good assortment. 

What is the basis that it isn’t a good predictor? The stats I’ve read suggest that it is decent by itself, though less so than high school GPA alone, and combining the two have very strong predictive capabilities.

[Kal-El814]

26 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

Not really. It's an easy way to sort people but it doesn't make it a good assortment. 

sblfilms has it right. It’s an imperfect tool but given the number of applications there are, universities need some way of filtering through candidates quickly. It’ll provide both false positives and false negatives but coupled with other data in an application it’s generally predictive.

[SuperSpreader]

I just know I sucked at both act and sat and hate tests but am doing well. Testing and academics don't necessarily apply to real world success. I think it just creates a system of entry for a certain class to game the system.

 

Most execs I work with are dumb motherfuckers. 90%+

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

I just know I sucked at both act and sat and hate tests but am doing well. Testing and academics don't necessarily apply to real world success. I think it just creates a system of entry for a certain class to game the system.

 

Most execs I work with are dumb motherfuckers. 90%+

 

The SAT is only designed to predict freshmen grades

[Greatoneshere]

40 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

I just know I sucked at both act and sat and hate tests but am doing well. Testing and academics don't necessarily apply to real world success. I think it just creates a system of entry for a certain class to game the system.

 

Most execs I work with are dumb motherfuckers. 90%+

 

Yeah that's bullshit. Of course only doing well with standardized testing and/or GPA isn't an indicator of real world success. Many people who don't do well succeed and some who do well in school get nowhere, and there are those of course who try to game the system (because every system is gamed). 

 

But if you can't do well at either standardized testing or getting good grades over a 4-year period (high school, and then separately, college) I question why not. Maybe it's a learning disability or mental health issue that's gone undiagnosed, and that sucks. It could be for a number of reasons, some legitimate, some bullshit (the student really is just lazy). 

 

Obviously the elite are a different story - but many of us worked hard to become smart to get where we are, and the system bears that out. Like any system, it is imperfect and I'm open to hearing other demonstrable ways to quantify ability and intelligence for those who struggle with both grades and standardized testing. 

[SuperSpreader]

22 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yeah that's bullshit. Of course only doing well with standardized testing and/or GPA isn't an indicator of real world success. Many people who don't do well succeed and some who do well in school get nowhere, and there are those of course who try to game the system (because every system is gamed). 

 

But if you can't do well at either standardized testing or getting good grades over a 4-year period (high school, and then separately, college) I question why not. Maybe it's a learning disability or mental health issue that's gone undiagnosed, and that sucks. It could be for a number of reasons, some legitimate, some bullshit (the student really is just lazy). 

 

Obviously the elite are a different story - but many of us worked hard to become smart to get where we are, and the system bears that out. Like any system, it is imperfect and I'm open to hearing other demonstrable ways to quantify ability and intelligence for those who struggle with both grades and standardized testing. 

Grades are fine - but standardized testing has become the gauge for grades as well meaning it also now tends to favor test taking over problem solving and critical thinking.

[RedSoxFan9]

The SAT is the perfect test for America

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

Grades are fine - but standardized testing has become the gauge for grades as well meaning it also now tends to favor test taking over problem solving and critical thinking.

 

Since both grades and standardized testing are both gauged and presented I'm not sure what you mean that testing has become the gauge for grades? You get graded entirely separate from standardized testing, so no one is using one as a gauge for the other (if anything, people expect if you are getting good grades that when you do take the SAT, you should do well on it in theory). I think I may misunderstand you though. 

[Greatoneshere]

3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

The SAT is the perfect test for America

 

I don't think anyone here is saying that, so this is a gross misrepresentation. But 10/10 for the shit posting - better than Boyle.  

[Boyle5150]

9 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I don't think anyone here is saying that, so this is a gross misrepresentation. But 10/10 for the shit posting - better than Boyle.  

[RedSoxFan9]

The SAT favors the rich and helps a small number of poorer but talented people become rich.  It’s the perfect American system. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

5 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

They do, depending on what you consider arcane, but many countries have forms of standardized testing. And when your country has 300+ million people in it, it's more necessary rather than less. 

 

I also should have noted earlier that there are ACT's too, so you aren't even bound to doing even one kind of standardized test! Though the SAT is considered a more important, more heavily weighted exam in your favor (or against) than the ACT. 

I never knew the difference between the SAT and ACT. To the best of my recollection(HS was 14 years ago) no one in my class took the SAT. We had some people achieve a near perfect ACT score, though. One person got a 35, if I'm remembering right.

 

I mean, I know the scoring is different, but that's all I really know.