5 ms·

It's not sufficient that a metric be objective. The student's astrological sign is objective. But it's not a useful measure of college readiness. Standardized

It's not sufficient that a metric be objective. The student's astrological sign is objective. But it's not a useful measure of college readiness. Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success when controlling for other variables. And they're trivial to game. They're a relic of back when people believed in IQ tests were useful selection criteria. Maybe there will be standardized tests in the future that are more useful, but we don't have those yet.

garbagecoder 5y ago
This is so dangerously drunk on Kool Aid, I can barely manage to reply. The SAT was begun in the first place to even out the different schools people came from so that elite schools couldn't just slide people in, or due to grade inflation, or whatever (and race!) You make a distinction without a difference in this case, and what other variables are you controlling for? Class rank? That can't be gamed, you think? Rich people will always game the system, whatever it is. In many cases, the alternatives are AP exams, which aren't even available in all schools. What criterion would you suggest? A lottery?
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Read the article.
throw_m239339 5y ago
> Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success when controlling for other variables. And they're trivial to game. needs sources, and unbiased ones.
- SquishyPanda23 5y ago
  This is a very well studied field, just do a Google search
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Do you have unbiased sources that indicate otherwise?
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > Do you have unbiased sources that indicate otherwise? The burden of proof lies with the person making a claim.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >The burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Exactly. And, in this case, that's you. The OP stated: "Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success". He's refuting a claim, not making one. The claim he's refuting is that standardized tests are significant predictors of college success. If you're asserting the claim is instead true, then please provide evidence that supports it.
      - throw_m239339 5y ago
        > Exactly. And, in this case, that's you. > The OP stated: "Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success". > He's refuting a claim, not making one. > The claim he's refuting is that standardized tests are significant predictors of college success. > If you're asserting the claim is instead true, then please provide evidence that supports it. I did not make any claim in that specific comment thread to begin with. I did not assert anything either. I'm asking the comment I directly answered to, to provide sources of the claims they made. not any parent. I never made any claims myself in that discussion thread. This is not reddit, please don't engage into these pointless tactics that add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You have absolutely nothing to contribute but useless rhetoric. I asked for sources to whomever I responded to, nothing else. If YOU want sources, then ask whoever made the point you are interested in yourself, not me. zarkov99 wrote a message, SquishyPanda23 answered making a claim, I'm interested in SquishyPanda23 sourcing his claim. If you want zarkov99 to source his claim, then ask him directly, not me. Just don't waste my time with these pointless comments of yours.
glerk 5y ago
> They're a relic of back when people believed in IQ tests were useful selection criteria. IQ tests are a very reliable proxy for academic performance potential. Is this even in dispute?
- sova 5y ago
  Can you provide evidence for this claim?
  - celeritascelery 5y ago
    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-roth.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-roth.pdf
    - sova 5y ago
      Did you see this one? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368.8509&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368...
    - kenjackson 5y ago
      It’s interesting that the correlation gets weaker over time.
      - sova 5y ago
        Self-discipline is a better predictor than IQ according to this paper from 2005. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368.8509&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368...
- sova 5y ago
  You know, I did a google scholar search for this "fact" and in 2005 a research paper shows that self-discipline outperforms IQ by a factor of 2.
- SquishyPanda23 5y ago
nyolfen 5y ago
standardized test scores, that is to say IQ test scores, are by far the strongest predictors of success available in any domain of the social sciences; nothing comes close, not even wealth. obviously high scores are no guarantee of anything, but there is nothing else that compares. to disregard them is to abandon the pretense of objectivity for nepotism.

garbagecoder 5y ago

This is so dangerously drunk on Kool Aid, I can barely manage to reply. The SAT was begun in the first place to even out the different schools people came from so that elite schools couldn't just slide people in, or due to grade inflation, or whatever (and race!) You make a distinction without a difference in this case, and what other variables are you controlling for? Class rank? That can't be gamed, you think? Rich people will always game the system, whatever it is. In many cases, the alternatives are AP exams, which aren't even available in all schools. What criterion would you suggest? A lottery?

unclebucknasty 5y ago
Read the article.

throw_m239339 5y ago

> Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success when controlling for other variables. And they're trivial to game. needs sources, and unbiased ones.

SquishyPanda23 5y ago
This is a very well studied field, just do a Google search
unclebucknasty 5y ago
Do you have unbiased sources that indicate otherwise?
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  > Do you have unbiased sources that indicate otherwise? The burden of proof lies with the person making a claim.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >The burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Exactly. And, in this case, that's you. The OP stated: "Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success". He's refuting a claim, not making one. The claim he's refuting is that standardized tests are significant predictors of college success. If you're asserting the claim is instead true, then please provide evidence that supports it.
    - throw_m239339 5y ago
      > Exactly. And, in this case, that's you. > The OP stated: "Standardized test scores do very little to predict college success". > He's refuting a claim, not making one. > The claim he's refuting is that standardized tests are significant predictors of college success. > If you're asserting the claim is instead true, then please provide evidence that supports it. I did not make any claim in that specific comment thread to begin with. I did not assert anything either. I'm asking the comment I directly answered to, to provide sources of the claims they made. not any parent. I never made any claims myself in that discussion thread. This is not reddit, please don't engage into these pointless tactics that add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You have absolutely nothing to contribute but useless rhetoric. I asked for sources to whomever I responded to, nothing else. If YOU want sources, then ask whoever made the point you are interested in yourself, not me. zarkov99 wrote a message, SquishyPanda23 answered making a claim, I'm interested in SquishyPanda23 sourcing his claim. If you want zarkov99 to source his claim, then ask him directly, not me. Just don't waste my time with these pointless comments of yours.

glerk 5y ago

> They're a relic of back when people believed in IQ tests were useful selection criteria. IQ tests are a very reliable proxy for academic performance potential. Is this even in dispute?

sova 5y ago
Can you provide evidence for this claim?
- celeritascelery 5y ago
  https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-roth.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-roth.pdf
  - sova 5y ago
    Did you see this one? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368.8509&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368...
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    It’s interesting that the correlation gets weaker over time.
    - sova 5y ago
      Self-discipline is a better predictor than IQ according to this paper from 2005. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368.8509&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368...
sova 5y ago
You know, I did a google scholar search for this "fact" and in 2005 a research paper shows that self-discipline outperforms IQ by a factor of 2.
SquishyPanda23 5y ago

nyolfen 5y ago

standardized test scores, that is to say IQ test scores, are by far the strongest predictors of success available in any domain of the social sciences; nothing comes close, not even wealth. obviously high scores are no guarantee of anything, but there is nothing else that compares. to disregard them is to abandon the pretense of objectivity for nepotism.